707 So. 2d 688 - Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

cited by 49 later decisions

states following

January 2019

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Jones v. State (1998), 727 So. 2d 216 - Rutherford v. State (1998)

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Giglio v. United States · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri

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

“in order to be considered newly discovered, the evidence `must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of due diligence.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Downs v. State · Sims v. State
“(1) that the Government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); (2) that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; (3) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Jones v. State · 739 So. 2d 553 - Young v. State
“[t]he thrust of Giglio and its progeny has been to ensure that the jury know the facts that might motivate a witness in giving testimony, and that the prosecutor not fraudulently conceal such facts from the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 854 So. 2d 1235 - Marshall v. State · 934 So. 2d 1187 - Archer v. State

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.