Camitsch v. Risley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Davis v. Alaska 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the Supreme Court held that Alaska’s interest in the confidentiality of a juvenile’s record of delinquency must yield to a criminal defendant’s right to effective cross-examination where ‘serious damage to the State’s case would have been a real possibility’ had defense counsel been permitted to introduce the prior delinquency adjudication of the witness and his ‘vulnerable’ status as a probationer as evidence of his pro-prosecution bias. 415 U.S. at 319 , 94 S.Ct. at 1111 . Camitsch attempts to expand the right of a criminal defendant under certain circumstances to introduce a juvenile offender’s ‘record’ (i.e., the fact of a delinquency adjudication and probationary status) into a general right to rummage through the otherwise confidential case files of every juvenile witness. Davis will not stretch that far.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wood v. State · 1 F. Supp. 2d 1187 - United States v. Doyle

2. “The right which Davis extended to encompass juvenile witnesses is the right to impeach a witness by showing that he has a ‘record’ in the precise, and not the loose, sense of the word — that is, the right to let the jury know that this witness is still facing pending criminal charges, has a pri- or conviction, or is still on probation.... Davis was necessary because many states sealed the records of juveniles, so that it was not possible for the jury to find out that the juvenile witness was, for example, on probation at the time he agreed to testify for the prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 F. Supp. 2d 1187 - United States v. Doyle

3. “[¡judicial decisions are not subject to the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Eccles