Roberts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2012
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Williams v. Florida · Baldwin v. New York Williams · Hardin v. State · Simmons v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the general law, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, that the prosecution is privileged to withhold from an accused the identity of an informer. See Simmons v. State, 198 Tenn. 587 , 281 S.W.2d 487 . This practically universal rule is predicated on public policy and seeks to encourage citizens to assist in crime detection and prevention by giving information to law enforcement officials without unduly exposing themselves to the danger inherent in such laudable activity and to make possible their continued usefulness in future disclosures that the revelation of their identity would probably hamper and prevent. “. [I]t should be a discretionary matter with the trial judge, as to whether the name of the informant is given or not . . . ” Simmons v. State, supra. [Emphasis supplied]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carver v. State · State v. Ostein“The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · Carver v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.