People v. Thurman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting his motion for a mistrial as a remedy for a discovery violation. We perceive no abuse of discretion. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion for discovery of all oral statements made either by him or any witness contacted during the investigation, whether tape-recorded or reduced to writing. The prosecution confessed the motion. During the trial, it became apparent that defendant and the victim had made numerous statements to the investigating officer which he had not included in his reports summarizing the interviews. The officer failed to disclose that, after waiving his Miranda rights, defendant had told the officer: (1) that he and the victim had engaged in oral sex; (2) that he and the victim had both been smoking cigarettes; (3) that he had followed the victim into the common area of the building because she had taken the handgun and he was concerned about her; and (4) that he had asked the victim to come to his apartment in order to help him pack. After conducting an in camera cross-examination to discover all statements not contained in the officer’s report, defendant moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial, ruling that defendant could conduct broad cross-examination in order to demonstrate to the jury that the investigating officer had withheld certain statements. The court reasoned that the statements not included in the report related to matter”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 599 F. Supp. 2d 1257 - Crosby v. Watkins

2. “Placing the initial burden on the witness or prosecution, we stated that "the danger claimed by the witness must in some way relate to the particular defendant. There must be a nexus such that the witness legitimately fears reprisal from the defendant or his associates." . . . "[A]fter the witness [has] made a showing that his safety would be endangered if he answered," the defendant has the duty to show that the information sought has "some materiality."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 68 Wash. App. 757 - State v. Mannhalt

3. “Ideally, the witness or the prosecution will provide the trial court, outside the presence of the jury, with a factual basis for the witness’[] apprehension, such as evidence of an actual threat to the witness. At minimum, however, “the danger claimed by the witness must in some way relate to the defendant. There must be a nexus such that the witness legitimately fears reprisal from the defendant or his associates.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. People v. District Court