Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 Nev. 316 - Aesoph v. State

Aesoph v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Chavez v. State (2009), Leonard v. State (1998)

46 state decisions

2401986199020002010decided

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

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Doyle v. Ohio · Lockett v. Ohio

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

  1. “first, that the defendant was represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing; second, that counsel cross-examined the witness; third, that the witness is shown to be actually unavailable at the time of trial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Such an injection of personal beliefs into the argument detracts from the "unprejudiced, impartial, and nonpartisan" role that a prosecuting attorney assumes in the courtroom. (Citations omitted.) By stepping out of the prosecutor's role, which is to seek justice (citations omitted), and by invoking the authority of his or her own supposedly greater experience and knowledge, a prosecutor invites undue jury reliance on the conclusions personally endorsed by the prosecuting attorney.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hat is impermissible is the evidentiary use of an individual's exercise of his constitutional rights after the state's assurance [in the Miranda warnings] that the invocation of those rights will not be penalized.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.