54 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 22 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. WARRIORgreen2 sentences2026There are three elements of a Brady violation: "(1) '"The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching'"; (2) "'that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently'"; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish prejudice."'" State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 506 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). 2026There are three elements of a Brady violation: "(1) '"The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching'"; (2) "'that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently'"; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish prejudice."'" State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 506 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). | 6 | 23 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 334, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) (outlining nature of Brady violation); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. 2025See State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 334, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) (outlining nature of Brady violation); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. | 5 | 15 |
Brady v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 , 90 S. Ct. 1463 , 25 L. 2025See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 , 90 S. Ct. 1463 , 25 L. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Hirshgreen2 sentences2026State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 333, 446 P.3d 472 (2019). 37 The framework of the Brady analysis is well-established: "7. . . . [P]rosecutors have a positive duty to disclose evidence favorable to the accused when the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. "8. 2026A claim asserting the State has withheld evidence in violation of this disclosure rule— commonly called a Brady claim—has three essential components: "(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish prejudice." State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , Syl. ¶ 1, 446 P.3d 472 (2019). | 2 | 13 |
State v. Breitenbachgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 335-36, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) (delayed disclosure may constitute a Brady violation if the defendant was prejudiced under the materiality component); State v. Breitenbach, 313 Kan. 73 , 98-99, 483 P.3d 448 (2021) (finding disclosure was delayed rather than suppressed under second prong, but moving on to materiality component). 2026See State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 335-36, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) (delayed disclosure may constitute a Brady violation if the defendant was prejudiced under the materiality component); State v. Breitenbach, 313 Kan. 73 , 98-99, 483 P.3d 448 (2021) (finding disclosure was delayed rather than suppressed under second prong, but moving on to materiality component). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Francisgreen2 sentences2024Upon the finding of a Brady violation, "'[t]he reversal of a conviction is required upon a "showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict."'" State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 151 , 145 P.3d 48 (2006). 2024Upon the finding of a Brady violation, "'[t]he reversal of a conviction is required upon a "showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict."'" State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 151 , 145 P.3d 48 (2006). | 2 | 4 |
Kyles v. Whitleygreen2 sentences2019This is the reason that, under Brady , we impute the knowledge and possession of information by law enforcement to the prosecutor. "[A] Brady violation can occur when the prosecutor withholds material evidence that is not known to the prosecutor but is known to law enforcement." Warrior , 294 Kan. at 505 -06 , 277 P.3d 1111 (law enforcement's knowledge imputed to State); see State v. Francis , 282 Kan. 120 , 150, 145 P.3d 48 (2006) (" Brady suppression occurs even when the government fails to turn over evidence that is not known to the prosecutor if it is known to police") (citing Kyles v. Whi 2019This is the reason that, under Brady , we impute the knowledge and possession of information by law enforcement to the prosecutor. "[A] Brady violation can occur when the prosecutor withholds material evidence that is not known to the prosecutor but is known to law enforcement." Warrior , 294 Kan. at 505 -06 , 277 P.3d 1111 (law enforcement's knowledge imputed to State); see State v. Francis , 282 Kan. 120 , 150, 145 P.3d 48 (2006) (" Brady suppression occurs even when the government fails to turn over evidence that is not known to the prosecutor if it is known to police") (citing Kyles v. Whi | 2 | 4 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2024"A trial court's determination as to the existence of a Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to the trial court's findings of fact, but the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , Syl. ¶ 13, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012); see also State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 595 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2016). 2024"A trial court's determination as to the existence of a Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to the trial court's findings of fact, but the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , Syl. ¶ 13, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012); see also State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 595 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2016). | 2 | 2 |
Banks v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2020State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 506 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012); see Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 , 124 S. Ct. 1256 , 157 L. 2020State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 506 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012); see Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 , 124 S. Ct. 1256 , 157 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2012See Adams, 280 Kan. at 501 (“sliding scale” applies as “the level of intent supporting the State’s conduct decreases”). 2008See State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 503 , 124 *51 P.3d 19 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
Wilkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2019And while you may have the discretion, Judge, that's not the same as being required to grant a hearing." The prosecutor acknowledged that an allegation of a Brady violation could be "looked at underneath a motion for new trial," citing Wilkins v. State, 286 Kan. 971 , 190 P.3d 957 (2008), but said that Judge Kaufman had already correctly decided that the new trial remedy was no longer available to Soto. "[Soto] certainly would preserve his right for whatever goes on in the future regarding a 1507 or whatever other claims he wants to change or make in the future," she said, but she insisted tha 2019And while you may have the discretion, Judge, that's not the same as being required to grant a hearing." The prosecutor acknowledged that an allegation of a Brady violation could be "looked at underneath a motion for new trial," citing Wilkins v. State, 286 Kan. 971 , 190 P.3d 957 (2008), but said that Judge Kaufman had already correctly decided that the new trial remedy was no longer available to Soto. "[Soto] certainly would preserve his right for whatever goes on in the future regarding a 1507 or whatever other claims he wants to change or make in the future," she said, but she insisted tha | 1 | 3 |
Haddock v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Wilkins v. State, 286 Kan. 971, 989 , 190 P.3d 957 (2008); Haddock v. State, 282 Kan. 475, 506 , 146 P.3d 187 (2006); see Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 , 124 S. Ct. 1256 , 157 L. 2012Wilkins v. State, 286 Kan. 971, 989 , 190 P.3d 957 (2008); Haddock v. State, 282 Kan. 475, 506 , 146 P.3d 187 (2006); see Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 , 124 S. Ct. 1256 , 157 L. | 1 | 2 |
Giglio v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 31 L. 1996Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 31 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Alfaro-Valledagreen1 sentence2025See State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526 , 551-52, 502 P.3d 66 (2022) (explaining how cumulative error involves the aggregated harm of multiple errors within a proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Godfreygreen2 sentences2024See State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015); State v. Anderson, No. 114,447, 2016 WL 3961436 , at *3 (Kan. 2024See State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043 , 350 P.3d 1068 (2015); State v. Anderson, No. 114,447, 2016 WL 3961436 , at *3 (Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker 2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 343 (7th Cir. 2017) (Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman, 536 F.3d 325, 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady, quoting State v. Walker, 214 Conn. 12 | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pindergreen | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Quartermangreen2 sentences2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker 2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 343 (7th Cir. 2017) (Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman, 536 F.3d 325, 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady, quoting State v. Walker, 214 Conn. 12 | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, — v. JOSE ANGEL ALMENDARES, —green2 sentences2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker 2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 343 (7th Cir. 2017) (Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman, 536 F.3d 325, 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady, quoting State v. Walker, 214 Conn. 12 | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Clovisgreen | 1 | 1 |
Gill v. City of Milwaukeegreen2 sentences2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker 2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 343 (7th Cir. 2017) (Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman, 536 F.3d 325, 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady, quoting State v. Walker, 214 Conn. 12 | 1 | 1 |
| Strickler v. Greenegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hein v. Sullivangreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Kohringgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Pelisamengreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Holdergreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 759546green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Climmie Jones, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Leonard A. Pelullo, United States of America v. Leonard A. Pelullogreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Kenneth J. Graham (05-2332) Kyle Dresbach (05-2347)green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Marriage of Stevengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences2017This court requires three essential elements to establish a Brady violation: "'(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish 15 prejudice.'" State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 700 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015); see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 (prejudice encompasses the materiality requirement of Brady). 2017This court requires three essential elements to establish a Brady violation: "'(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish 15 prejudice.'" State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 700 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015); see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 (prejudice encompasses the materiality requirement of Brady). | 4 | 2017–2026 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences2024A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S. Ct. 3375 , 87 L. 2024A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S. Ct. 3375 , 87 L. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Levy
green
2 sentences2024"A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact." State v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232 , 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). 2024"A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact." State v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232 , 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Soto
green
2 sentences2024"A prosecutor's suppression of evidence favorable to the accused is a violation of a defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 978 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 ). 2024"A prosecutor's suppression of evidence favorable to the accused is a violation of a defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 978 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sanders v. United States
green
1 sentence2021The State cannot withhold favorable evidence to an accused "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 . "[A] Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to a trial court's findings of fact, but the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 510 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2020"And the denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. DeWeese, 305 Kan. 699 , 709, 387 P.3d 809 (2017). "'A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact.'" State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). 2020"And the denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. DeWeese, 305 Kan. 699 , 709, 387 P.3d 809 (2017). "'A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact.'" State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
– State v. Lyman –
green
2 sentences2020To establish a Brady violation three essential elements must be shown: "(1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish prejudice. " State v. Lyman, 311 Kan. 1 , 19, 455 P.3d 393 (2020). 2020To establish a Brady violation three essential elements must be shown: "(1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must be material so as to establish prejudice. " State v. Lyman, 311 Kan. 1 , 19, 455 P.3d 393 (2020). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker 2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Rojas-Marceleno
green
2 sentences2019State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525, 539 , 285 P.3d 361 (2012). 2019State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525, 539 , 285 P.3d 361 (2012). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Gomez green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Clifton green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Pickens (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker 2019See Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335 , 343 (7th Cir. 2017) ( Brady does not require pretrial disclosure; disclosure with enough time for defendant to use is sufficient); Powell v. Quarterman , 536 F.3d 325 , 335 (5th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice if disclosure allows effective use at trial); *485 United States v. Almendares , 397 F.3d 653 , 664 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process satisfied, in part, because information known in time for use); State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218 , 272, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) (evidence disclosed during trial not suppressed within meaning of Brady , quoting State v. Walker | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2019Counsel also argued that a new trial could be granted to Soto because of ineffective assistance of counsel, regardless of whether a motion for new trial was untimely, citing State v. Reed, 302 Kan. 227 , 352 P.3d 530 (2015), and State v. Denomme, No. 113,941, 2016 WL 3031252 (Kan. 2019Counsel also argued that a new trial could be granted to Soto because of ineffective assistance of counsel, regardless of whether a motion for new trial was untimely, citing State v. Reed, 302 Kan. 227 , 352 P.3d 530 (2015), and State v. Denomme, No. 113,941, 2016 WL 3031252 (Kan. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Wilson neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| United States v. Wilson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| White v. Collins green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Order of Friars Minor v. Alperin green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Napue v. Illinois green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Humphrey green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Aikins green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. McKinney green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Henry green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Kelly green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| The People v. Hudson green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Lawrence v. State neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.