Firth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Not every denial of a motion for continuance to obtain witnesses violates the accused's right to compulsory process. See, e.g., McKinney v. Wainwright , 488 F.2d 28 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 973 , 94 S.Ct. 1998 , 40 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974). A court may not, however, refuse to grant a reasonable continuance for the purpose of obtaining defense witnesses where it has been shown that the desired testimony would be relevant and material to the defense. Hicks v. Wainwright , 633 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1981); Singleton v. Lefkowitz , 583 F.2d 618 (2d Cir. 1978). In Hicks this Court *Page 299 recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by denial of a motion for continuance: " ' "The diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 542 So. 2d 292 - Anderson v. State

2. “It is now clear that Brady imposes an affirmative duty on the prosecution to produce at the appropriate time the requested evidence which is materially favorable to the accused either as direct or impeaching evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Henderson v. State