State v. Gingo’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. “"It is not in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution, in its unfettered discretion, to determine the favorable or unfavorable nature of potentially exculpatory evidence, and then allow the prosecution to destroy the evidence, thereby forcing the defendant to establish the favorable nature of evidence that no longer exists. In the present case, since the prosecution was attempting to establish constructive possession of the pistol, the video tape would have been favorable to the defendant if it showed that the defendant was away from the car and that the car door was closed. Through inconsistent statements, the police officers attempted to establish that the video tape was not favorable to the defendant because the tape depicted only a portion of the arrest scene. Additionally, the prosecution summarized that the video tape was immaterial because several officers had testified as to the same evidence that would have been depicted by the video tape. "The fact remains that the police officers intentionally destroyed the video tape after making their own determination as to its favorable or unfavorable nature. This act substantially impaired the defendant's ability to establish the favorable nature of the evidence and violated the defendant's right to due process."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 624 So. 2d 706 - Grissom v. State · 893 So. 2d 488 - Snyder v. State

2. “"The Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States did not require the suppression of the test results. '[W]hen we deal with the failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant,' the good or bad faith of the State is relevant. Arizona v. Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51 [57], 109 S.Ct. 333 , 337 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988). '[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.' Youngblood , 488 U.S. at 58 , 109 S.Ct. at 337 . 'The presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of the due Process Clause must necessarily turn on the police's knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed.' Youngblood , 488 U.S. at 57 n.[*], 109 S.Ct. at 337 n.[*]. See also, United States v. Galvan-Garcia , 872 F.2d 638 , 641 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [493] U.S. [857], 110 S.Ct. 164 [ 107 L.Ed.2d 122 ] (1989). See generally, W. LaFave and J. Israel, 2 Criminal Procedure § 19.5 (Supp. 1991)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 624 So. 2d 706 - Grissom v. State · 893 So. 2d 488 - Snyder v. State

3. “That samples were taken . . . which both the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Environmental Protection Agency had when the indictments were issued against the said Defendants.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 605 So. 2d 1237 - Ex Parte Gingo