Van Woudenberg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Taking this case as a whole, the statements in question cannot be deemed exculpatory as they are less complete and less conclusive than those statements produced at trial. Petitioner has not established that the subject evidence, if separately admitted, would have created a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist. The jury had sufficient evidence before it to discredit the testimony of Garvin and Rose, as well as the key witness against Petitioner, Dennis Brown. Petitioner has not shown that the absence of this evidence denied him a fair trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Van Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson

2. “The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Samuel Raymond Van Woudenberg v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma

3. “-that there is a reasonable probability that, had it been utilized by the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Van Woudenberg v. State, 1997 OK CR 38, ¶ 10 , 942 P.2d 224, 227-28 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 OK CR 46 - Stouffer v. State