Berkovitz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the petitioner establishes that a physical disability or mental disease precluded a timely assertion of the claim; (2) the petitioner alleges the existence of newly discovered evidence, including scientific evidence, that could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence by the petitioner or petitioner’s attorney within the two-year time period for filing a postconviction petition, and the evidence is not cumulative to evidence presented at trial, is not for impeachment purposes, and establishes by a clear and convincing standard that the petitioner is innocent of the offense or offenses for which the petitioner was convicted; (3) the petitioner asserts a new interpretation of federal or state constitutional or statutory law by either the United States Supreme Court or a Minnesota appellate court, and the petitioner establishes that this interpretation is retroactively applicable to the petitioner’s case; (4) the petition is brought pursuant to subdivision 3 [dealing with convictions for crimes committed before May 1, 1980]; or (5) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is not frivolous and is in the interests , of justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota

2. “[a] petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence.” While the legal significance of the foregoing text in subdivision 1 has yet to be determined — that is, whether it constitutes an independent procedural bar similar to the Knaffla rule without incorporating either of Knaffla's exceptions — the provision applies only to those”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hooper v. State

3. “No petition for postconviction relief may be filed more than two years after ... an appellate court's disposition of petitioner's direct appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Munt v. State