59 Wash. App. 763 - State v. Sherman’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 822 - State v. Blackwell (1993), 123 Wash. 2d 704 - State v. Hanna (1994)
31 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 79 Wash. 2d 12 - State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker · 115 Wash. 2d 294 - State v. Lewis · 101 Wash. 2d 745 - State v. Laureano · 113 Wash. 2d 520 - State v. Brown · 56 Wash. App. 499 - Coggle v. Snow
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We agree that if the State inexcusably fails to act with due diligence, and material facts are thereby not disclosed to defendant until shortly before a crucial stage in the litigation process, it is possible either a defendant's right to a speedy trial, or his right to be represented by counsel who has had sufficient opportunity to adequately prepare a material part of his defense, may be impermissibly prejudiced. Such unexcused conduct by the State cannot force a defendant to choose between these rights. The defendant, however, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that interjection of new facts into the case when the State has not acted with due diligence will compel him to choose between prejudicing either of these rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the question of whether dismissal is an appropriate remedy is a fact-specific determination that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact that the State did not have physical control of the records, or that the defense did not independently attempt to locate the records, does not excuse the State’s actions. The omnibus order, agreed to by the prosecution, specifically placed the onus on the State to give the IRS records to the defense prior to trial. The defense had no obligation to get the records from the State’s complaining witness, because the State agreed to provide them. Further, although the material was not in the hands of the State, it was available to its chief witness, the employer. While the employer did unsuccessfully attempt to locate the records in his files, the State failed to follow up to ensure that the records were produced in a timely fashion. As a result, the employer did not request copies of the records from the IRS until the week before the hearing on the motion to dismiss, 10 days after trial was originally scheduled to start.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.