Emerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this case, there is no evidence that the government purposely ambushed the defense when it produced the padlock only days before trial. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense motion that this evidence be suppressed. Moreover, Appellant has not shown that he was materially prejudiced because he was not able to examine the padlock earlier. Appellant does not now identify — nor did he identify at trial or in his motion for a new trial — who the witness might be who would allegedly testify that the condition of the lock is material. Thus, Appellant’s argument is founded on speculation that such a witness may exist. This is insufficient to show that he was materially prejudiced by the fact that the lock was not produced until the Friday before trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luedtke v. State

2. “The record is clear that neither the State nor its agents had the padlock in their possession until the Friday prior to trial when it was promptly produced. See United States v. Marshall, 132 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C.Cir.1998) (government cannot be required to disclose evidence which it neither possesses nor controls), and United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1047-49 (9th Cir. 1985). (government need only turn over those documents actually in its possession); see also, United States v. Friedman, 593 F.2d 109, 120 (9th Cir.1979); State v. Babb, 125 Idaho 934 , 877 P.2d 905, 909 (1994); Young v. State, 146 Ga.App. 167 , 245 S.E.2d 866, 867 (1978).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ryan Alexander Brown v. State

3. “[A] prosecutor may not sandbag a defendant by “the simple expedient of leaving relevant evidence to repose in the hands of another agency while utilizing his access to it in preparing his case for trial.” [United States v.] Brazel, 102 F.3d [1120] 1150 ([1997]) (quoting United States v. Trevino, 556 F.2d 1265, 1272 (5th Cir.1977)). Under such circumstances, that evidence is “plainly within [the prosecutor’s] Rule 16 ‘control’ ”. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ryan Alexander Brown v. State