Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 880 So. 2d 255 - State v. Tate

880 So. 2d 255 - State v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · 488 So. 2d 965 - State v. Rosiere

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

  1. “The purpose of pretrial discovery procedures is to eliminate unwarranted prejudice to a defendant that could arise from surprise testimony. Discovery procedures enable a defendant to properly assess the strength of the state’s case against him in order to prepare his defense. If a defendant is lulled into a misapprehension of the strength of the state’s case by the failure to fully disclose, such a prejudice may constitute reversible error. Under the United States Supreme Court decision in Brady , the state, upon request, must produce evidence that is favorable to the accused where it is material to guilt or punishment. This rule has been expanded to include evidence that impeaches the testimony of a witness where the reliability or credibility of that witness may be determinative of guilt or innocence. Where a specific request is made for such information and the subject matter of such a request is material, or if a substantial basis for claiming materiality exists, it is reasonable to require the prosecutor to respond either by furnishing the information or by submitting the information to the trial judge for an in camera inspection. The test for determining materiality was firmly established in U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), and has been applied by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would hav”
    3 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.