Rivera v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the evidence still exists in a condition making DNA testing possible and has been subjected to a sufficient chain of custody; (2) identity was or is an issue in the case; and (3) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: (A) he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained from DNA testing; and (B) the request for testing is not made to unreasonably delay execution of sentence or the administration of justice.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yarbrough v. State · Birdwell v. State

2. “(a) A convicting court may order forensic DNA testing under this chapter only if: (1) the court finds that: (A) the evidence: (i) still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible; and (ii) has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect; and (B) identity was or is an issue in the case; and (2) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: (A) a reasonable probability exists the person would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and (B) the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreason-' ably delay the execution of sentence or the administration of justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lopez v. State