Dietrich v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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. “The Commonwealth also argues that Ritchie is not entitled to disclosure because he did not make.a particularized showing of what information he was seeking or how it would be material. See Brief for Petitioner 18 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-110 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2400-01 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) (“The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense ... does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense”)). Ritchie, of course, may not require the trial court to search through the CYS file without first establishing that it contains material evidence. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 , 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982) (“He must at least make some plausible showing of how their testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”). Although the obligation to disclose exculpatory material does not depend on the presence of a specific request, we note that the degree of specificity of Ritchie’s request may. have bearing on the trial court’s assessment on remand of the materiality of the nondisclosure. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682-83 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 3383-84 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (opinion of BLACKMUN, J.).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 187 F. Supp. 3d 1021 - Moseley v. Kemper