Mazurek v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Dysthe v. State (2003), Schreibvogel v. State (2010)
43 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Brady v. United States · Berger v. United States · Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board · Holsey v. Director of Classification for Division of Corrections
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“hinge on whether a defendant's case has been so prejudiced as to constitute denial of a fair trial.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kenyon v. State · Whitney v. State“Plain error exists when 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him. Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999) (quoting Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 358 (Wyo.1994)); see also Mora v. State, 984 P.2d 477, 480 (Wyo.1999).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Weidt v. State · O'BRIEN v. State“1) the degree to which the progecutor's remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and prejudice the accused; 2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; 3) the strength of competent proof to establish guilt, absent the remarks; 4) whether the comments were deliberate ly placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters; 5) the presence or. absence of a limiting instruction; 6) whether there was a proper purpose for introducing the conviction; 7) whether the conviction was improperly emphasized; 8) whether the conviction was used as substantive evidence of guilt; 9) whether the error was invited by defense counsel; 10) whether the failure to object could have been the result of tactical decisions; and 11) whether, in light of all the evidence, the error was harmless. "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Black v. State · Farrow v. State
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.