Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably 746 So. 2d 364 - Boyd v. State (1999), 805 So. 2d 763 - Ex Parte Dobyne (2001)
1 federal appellate · 37 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 · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Lockett v. Ohio
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Furthermore, to render effective assistance, an attorney is not required to raise every conceivable constitutional claim available at trial and on appeal. Holladay v. State, 629 So.2d 673 (Ala.Cr. App.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171 , 114 S.Ct. 1208 , 127 L.Ed.2d 555 (1994); McCoy v. Lynaugh, 874 F.2d 954, 965-66 (5th Cir.1989). Rather, counsel must be given some discretion in determining which claims possibly have merit, and thus a better chance of success, and which claims do not have merit, and thus have little chance of success. Heath v. State, 536 So.2d 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 , 106 S.Ct. 2661 , 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 , 102 S.Ct. 1558 , 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982)."”
14 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hinton v. State · Williams v. State“Duren v. State, 590 So.2d 360, 362 (Ala. Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 369 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, [503] U.S. [974], 112 S.Ct. 1594 , 118 L.Ed.2d 310 (1992).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State · Pierce v. State“"`"In order to establish a Brady violation, appellant must prove: `(1) The prosecution's suppression of evidence; (2) The favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense; (3) The materiality of the suppressed evidence.'" Knight v. State, 478 So.2d 332, 335 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). "`"The holding of Brady v. Maryland requires disclosure only of evidence that is both favorable to the accused and `material either to guilt or punishment.' 373 U.S. [83] at 87[, 83 S.Ct. 1194 at 1196 ]. See also Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95 , 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2567-2568 , 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972). "`"The Court explained in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976): `A fair analysis of the holding in Brady indicates that implicit in the requirement of materiality is a concern that the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.' "`"... Thus, the prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial: "`"`For unless the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial, there was no constitutional violation requiring that the verdict be set aside; and absent a constitutional violation, there was no breach of the prosec”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.