McKibbon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2021
11 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 Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Britt v. North Carolina · Sullivan v. United States · Roberts v. LaVallee · Smith v. Bennett
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ach request should be treated on a case by case basis. The defendant should set out with specificity that portion of the testimony he desires from any prior proceeding, whether from his own trial or that of a third party, and demonstrate a particular need for a transcription of that evidence. Much weight should be given to the trial judge’s exercise of discretion after conducting a hearing on the particular request.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nonn v. State · De La Paz v. State“[T]he appellant wholly failed to demonstrate a “particularized specific” need for the transcription of his co-defendant’s trial_ Appellant merely alleged the copy of the third party’s transcription was necessary to enable him to prove his defense of alibi. However, his “need” failed to meet the test of a “par-tieularied, specific need.” Appellant failed to explain the manner in which he would use the transcription to assist him in his alibi defense. Moreover, appellant failed to request specific passages of testimony, but requested the entire transcription of ... [his co-defendants’] trial. As appellant failed to demonstrate a “particularized, specific need” for the transcription of his co-defendant’s trial, we refuse to extend the presumption of need noted in Armour, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nonn v. State“In the absence of a showing of some particularized need, the presumption of need as set forth in Britt, supra, should not be applied to transcriptions of third party trials. Rather, the accused shall be required to demonstrate a specific need for the transcript.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Melendez 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.