Ex Parte State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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. ““We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that ‘good cause’ is the appropriate standard by which to judge post-conviction discovery motions. In fact, other courts have adopted a similar ‘good-cause’ or ‘good-reason’ standard for the postconviction discovery process. See [State v.] Marshall, [ 148 N.J. 89 , 690 A.2d 1 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 (1997) ]; State v. Lewis, 656 So.2d 1248 (Fla.1994); People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988). As noted by the Illinois Supreme Court, the good-cause standard guards against potential abuse of the postconviction discovery process. See Fitzgerald, supra, 123 Ill.2d at 183 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d at 135 . We also agree that New Jersey’s Marshall case provides a good working framework for reviewing discovery motions and orders in capital cases. In addition, we are bound by our own rule that ‘an evidentiary hearing must be held on a [petition for postconviction relief] which is meritorious on its face, ie., one which contains matters and allegations (such as ineffective assistance of counsel) which, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief.’ Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Ala.1985). “We emphasize that this holding— that postconviction discovery motions are to be judged by a good cause standard — does not automatically allow discovery under Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., and that it does not expand the discovery procedures within Rule 32.4. Accord Lewis, supra, 656 So.2d”

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

2. ““Though Alabama has had little opportunity to define what constitutes ‘good cause,’ in Ex parte Mack, 894 So.2d 764, 768 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), we quoted with approval an Illinois case the Alabama Supreme Court relied on in Land —People v. Johnson, 205 Ill.2d 381 , 275 Ill.Dec. 820 , 793 N.E.2d 591 (2002): “ ‘ “A trial court has inherent discretionary authority to order discovery in post-conviction proceedings. See People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175, 183 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988); People v. Rose, 48 Ill.2d 300, 302 , 268 N.E.2d 700 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert attention away from constitutional issues which escaped earlier review by requesting discovery .... Accordingly, the trial court should allow discovery only if the defendant has shown ‘good cause,’ considering the issues presented in the petition, the scope of the requested discovery, the length of time between the conviction and the post-conviction proceeding, the burden of discovery on the State and on any witnesses, and the availability of the evidence through other sources. Daley, 123 Ill.2d at 183-84 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d 131 ; see People v. Fair, 193 Ill.2d 256, 264-65 , 250 Ill.Dec. 284 , 738 N.E.2d 500 (2000). We will reverse a trial court’s denial of a post-conviction discovery request only for an abuse of discretion. Fair, 193 Ill.2d at 265 , 250 Ill. Dec. 284 , 738 N.E.2d 500 . A trial cou”

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

3. ““The State initially asserts that the circuit court erred in failing to consider the merits of the issues the requested discovery was to support. The above cases clearly show that we must evaluate the merits of the underlying issues to determine whether the petitioner has established good cause for the discovery. As we said in State v. Stallworth, 941 So.2d 327, 331 (Ala.Crim.App.2006): “ ‘The Alabama Supreme Court in Land noted that the main emphasis in determining whether good cause is shown is a determination of the merits and the procedural posture of the un- “ ‘ “[W]e must determine whether Land presented the trial court with good cause for ordering the requested discovery. To do that, we must examine Land’s basis for the relief requested in his postconviction petition and determine whether his claims are facially meritorious. Only after making that examination and determination can we determine whether Land has shown good cause.” ‘“775 So.2d at 858. In [Ex parte] Hooks, [ 822 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000),] we stated: “‘“[A] claim that is procedurally barred ... in a postconviction petition clearly is not one that entitles a petitioner to relief. If a postconviction claim does not entitle the petitioner to relief, then the petitioner has failed to establish good cause for the discovery of materials related to that claim. See Land.” “ ‘822 So.2d at 481.’ ””

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