Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 940 SW2D 623 - Cook v. State

Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Ex Parte Briseno (2004), Jones v. State (2000)

31 state decisions

160199620002010decided

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 · United States v. Leon · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs

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

  1. “1) the State failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the prosecution's good or bad faith; 2) the withheld evidence is favorable to him; 3) the evidence is material, that is, there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Under Brady , the defendant bears the burden of showing that, in light of all the evidence, it is reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecutor made a timely disclosure. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “the 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.”). . In further support of its holding that appellant did not preserve for review his Brady claim, the majority points to the trial court's order denying the motion for new trial. See ante, op. at 761 (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[Wjhether prosecutorial misconduct, magnified by the passage of over fourteen years and the death of a key witness,' can so degrade the normal workings of justice that a fair trial becomes impossible and thus retrial is forbidden under due process and due course principles.”
    1 later decision 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.