87 Wash. 2d 783 - State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably State v. Morales (1995), 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams (1981)
3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Giglio v. United States · Giles v. State of Maryland · 12 Cal. 3d 641 - People v. Hitch · United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“clear there was a reasonable possibility that the evidence destroyed by the police . . . was material to guilt or innocence and favorable to appellant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““While good faith loss may excuse noncompliance with the duties of preservation and disclosure where the government makes ‘earnest efforts’ to preserve crucial materials, * * * this is not such a case. As previously noted, there is no suggestion that the evidence was destroyed for the purpose of hindering the defense. However,, in destruction of evidence cases, as in true suppression cases to which they are closely analogous, the motive of those destroying the items is not determinative. * * * Here the destruction was intentional; no efforts were made to preserve the evidence. * * * However, neither administrative convenience nor inadequate facilities, where it is not shown facilities could, not be obtained, justifies a failure to preserve potential evidence.” (Italics supplied in part.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.