Chappee v. Vose’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 13 district · 20 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although the Taylor Court declined to cast a mechanical standard to govern all possible cases, it established that, as a general matter, the trial judge (in deciding which sanction to impose) must weigh the defendant’s right to compulsory process against the countervailing public interests: (1) the integrity of the adversary process, (2) the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and (3) the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process. * * * The judge should also factor into the mix the nature of the explanation given for the party’s failure seasonably to abide by the discovery request, the willfulness vel non of the violation, the relative simplicity of compliance, and whether or not some unfair tactical advantage has been sought.” Id. at 29.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Foster · State v. Cooper

2. “"If the prosecution and its chemist were caught unaware, perhaps even so fragile a straw as the isomer strategy might carry the day." In upholding the right of the trial court to preclude the testimony of three defense experts who had not timely been discovered to the prosecution, the Court noted, at 843 F.2d 31 : “[D]etermining the truth is a complicated business, and its achievement can be thwarted as easily by ‘springing’ surprise testimony on an unsuspecting opponent — especially surprise testimony of a highly technical nature — as by presenting perjured testimony____ Here, ... concealing the witnesses’ identities could only be thought 'motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence.’ ... Once the Commonwealth had been cradle-sung into a false sense of security, and Gagnon subjected to cross without fair warning of the nature of the defense, Chappee’s chances of success — admittedly slim at best — were (unfairly) maximized. Such buccaneering cannot be countenanced."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Looper · 79 Md. App. 241 - Best v. State

3. “The judge should also factor into the mix the nature of the explanation given for the party's failure reasonably to abide by the discovery request, the willfulness vel non of the violation, the relative simplicity of compliance, and whether or not some unfair tactical advantage has been sought.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez · United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez