State v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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. ““The first prong is a four-part inquiry that requires that the evidence be (1) newly discovered since trial, (2) not discoverable prior to trial with the exercise of due diligence, (3) not merely cumulative or impeaching but rather material to the issue upon which it is admissible, (4) of the type which would probably change the verdict at trial. * * * Once this first prong is satisfied, the second prong calls for the hearing justice to determine if the evidence presented is ‘credible enough to warrant a new trial.’ ” Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brooks · State v. Firth

2. ““A defendant’s right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by article I, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The test to determine whether a defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial was enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 38 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The court must consider ‘(1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his [or her] rights, and (4) the prejudice to the accused. State v. Allan, 433 A.2d 222, 224 (R.I.1981). Since a single factor alone is not a necessary or a sufficient condition for establishing a deprivation, the court must balance the factors with the circumstances of each case before reaching its decision.” State v. Hernandez, 641 A.2d 62, 67-68 (R.I.1994)”

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

3. ““(1) it must be newly discovered since trial, “(2) the defendant must have been diligent in his or her attempts to discover the evidence for use at the original trial, “(3) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching, but rather it must be material to the issue, and “(4) the newly discovered evidence must be the type that would probably change the verdict at the new trial.” Id.”

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