Barton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 17 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 20 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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tolbert v. State · Alleyne v. State

2. “may limit the number of defense witnesses without depriving a defendant of due process, particularly when there is no offer of proof as to the substance of the proposed witness' testimony and its materiality, or when the testimony would be cumulative or irrelevant . . . a request for continuance in order to procure additional witnesses is a matter within the sound discretion of the [trial] court, and when the request is denied [a defendant] must show an abuse of discretion and specific, substantial prejudice in order to obtain relief”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 581 So. 2d 1144 - McLeod v. State

3. “'The general rule is that evidence of other crimes not charged in the indictment is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show the bad character, inclination or propensity of the accused to commit the type of crime for which he is being prosecuted.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 549 So. 2d 155 - Briggs v. State