State v. Tackett’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 1998 · most notably State v. Turner (1970), State v. Brown (1998)
38 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Dennis v. United States · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States · Giles v. State of Maryland · Miller v. Pate
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Here, again, we believe the respondent has misconstrued the requirements of the law, for there is no showing of any unusual circumstances by which the defendants might be entitled to examine such reports and statements. ij? ifc % if: “It is generally held that for an accused to be granted the right to inspect evidence in the possession of the prosecution, he must show something more than a mere desire for all the information obtained by the prosecution. See, State v. Superior Court, 1965, 106 N.H. 228 , 208 A.2d 832 , 7 A.L.R.3d 1 ; Rosier v. People, 1952, 126 Colo. 82 , 247 P.2d 448 ; and Annot., 7 A.L.R.3d 8 , § 7. In particular, production of the state’s .evidence is not allowed for exploratory purposes, People v. Leahey, 1960, 26 Misc.2d 438 , 207 N.Y.S.2d 619 * * *.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mascarenas““ ‘A particularized need’ which in the furtherance of justice would authorize a trial judge to make available to the de-fendant a transcript of testimony, must be shown by facts and circumstances which demonstrate that unless such relief is forthcoming, the defendant will, in some manner, be prejudiced, or his legal rights adversely affected. Under the law as it exists today, as set forth in this opinion, the defendant is not entitled to a transcript of testimony of any witness solely because he wants to find out what the witness said. To grant him such privilege is not in the ‘furtherance of justice’ because the public interest in preservation of secrecy outweighs the defendant’s interest in discovery.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Baca“determined that where the prosecutor used grand jury testimony at the trial, the defendant should be permitted to examine the grand jury testimony of that witness for the purpose of cross examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Valles 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.