817 So. 2d 343 - State v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Facts to which the absent witness is expected to testify, showing the materiality of the testimony and the necessity for the presence of the witness at the trial; (2) Facts and circumstances showing a probability that the witness will be available at the time to which the trial is deferred; and (3) Facts showing due diligence used in an effort to procure attendance of the witness.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 13 So. 3d 187 - State v. Riggins · 876 So. 2d 146 - State v. Landry

2. ““In order to show prejudicial error sufficient to warrant reversal, the defendant must show that the testimony the witness would have given would have been favorable to the defense and would indicate the possibility of a different result.” State v. Landry, 03-1632, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/19/04), 876 So.2d 146, 153 , writ denied, 04-1586 (La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 474 (citing State v. Stevenson, 02-79 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02), 817 So.2d 343 ).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Means · 58 So. 3d 637 - State v. Dorsey