Cabrera v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Cabrera did not suffer significant prejudice from the State’s discovery violation. Although the State announced only a short time before trial its intention to present the evidence, Cabrera had known for several years that the State possessed the belt. In addition, despite the State’s late proffer of the evidence, Cabrera had sufficient time to secure an expert witness to rebut the State’s expert witness. The court granted a recess to allow Cabrera’s counsel time to locate and prepare a rebuttal expert. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce the belt and patterned injury evidence despite the State’s discovery violation.”

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

2. “[The] statements fail to satisfy the ... circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness [requirement under the residual hearsay exception] for the same reasons that they were not admissible under [the statement against penal interest exception)-they were not supported by sufficient corroborating evidence.”

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

3. “The Superior Court has broad discretion to fashion remedies for discovery violations.”); See also DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 16(d)(2)”

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