State v. Arguello’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The State’s violation of SDCL 23A-37-15 “does not automatically vitiate the conviction.” State v. Lyerla, 424 N.W.2d 908, 911 (S.D.1988) (citation omitted). The State’s destruction of evidence favorable to [the defense] is a violation of due process if the evidence requested by [the defense] and destroyed by the State is material either to guilt or punishment. Id. at 910 (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)). The state’s duty to preserve evidence is limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-89 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2534 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413, 422 (1984) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Additionally, [the defense] must show that the State acted in bad faith in releasing the [evidence], Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 , 109 S.Ct. 333, 337 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281, 289 (1988). (emphasis added).”

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

2. “group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of the group from the jury selection process. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d at 553 ; Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d at 83 -4 (citing Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 , 99 S.Ct. at 668 ; Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 , 90 S.Ct. 532 , 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970)). [¶ 23] Helmer failed to meet his burden in showing there was a”

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

3. “Before any property is returned to the owner pursuant to § 23A-37-14, the law enforcement personnel in possession of the property shall notify the defendant that the property will be returned to the owner. Upon a motion made by the defendant and upon good cause shown that the property contains exculpatory evidence of the defendant’s innocence, the court may order the law enforcement personnel in possession of the property not to release it to the owner.”

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