State v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'“This court is in complete accord with the well-recognized rule advanced by appellant, and the authorities in support thereof, that the deliberate suppression of evidence or the' use of false evidence knowingly by a prosecuting officer in a criminal case, constitutes a denial of due process of law if such evidence is material to the guilt or innocence of the accused, or to the penalty to be imposed. But, the failure in this case to show materiality of the suppressed evidence or testimony, or prejudice resulting therefrom, renders the rule inapplicable here. “But appellant asserts that the rule of materiality with regard to false testimony or suppressed evidence is satisfied when such evidence concerns the credibility of the witness. In support of this rule, which appellant contends is applicable in this case, is cited Alcorta v. State of Texas, 355 U.S. 28 , 78 S.Ct. 103 , 2 L.Ed.2d 9 ; Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 ; People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554 , 154 N.Y.2d 885 , 136 N.E.2d 853 ; Griffith v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 282 F.2d 711 ; and Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 79 [791], * * * “ * *. * “In United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 3 Cir., 195 F.2d 815 , 33 A.L.R.2d 1407 , the court held that the suppression of evidence may be a denial of due process when it is vital evidence material to the issues of guilt or penalty. See also United States v. Rutkin, 3 Cir., 212 F.2d 641 and Soulia v. O’Brien, D.C”

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