Ogden v. Wolff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 15 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “means non-disclosure of evidence that the prosecutor, and not the defense attorney, knew to be in existence.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Minor v. State · Davis v. State

2. “We have reached this conclusion with some reluctance, particularly in light of the considered belief of the able and conscientious district judge, who has lived with this case for years, that review of the record in light of all the defense new trial motions left him 'convinced of the correctness of the jury's verdict.' We, who also have had no small exposure to the facts, are by no means convinced otherwise. The test, however, is not how the newly discovered evidence concerning the hypnosis would affect the trial judge or ourselves but whether, with the Government's case against (the defendant) already subject to serious attack, there was a significant chance that this added item, developed by skilled counsel as it would have been, could have induced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to avoid a conviction. We cannot conscientiously say there was not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Agurs

3. “For example, . . . the suppression of any evidence which is probative on the issue of guilt or innocence can constitute a denial of due process. However, . . . [a]s to evidence not of that character and having admissibility only for the purpose of impeachment or credibility attack, nondisclosure or suppression, to be violative of due process, would in our opinion, unless the situation is otherwise tainted, have to be of such inherent significance as to represent fundamental unfairness. In order to meet the “fundamental unfairness” test . . ., the defendant must show that “there was a significant chance that [the suppressed evidence], developed by skilled counsel as it would have been, could have induced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to avoid a conviction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lindhorst v. United States