State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably State v. Maestas (2006), Clinebell v. Commonwealth (1988)
1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Davis v. Alaska · Griffin v. California · Anderson v. Charles · Rodriguez v. United States · State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]vidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct, opinion evidence thereof or reputation for past sexual conduct, shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct is material to the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Scott · State v. Johnson“[A] prosecutor’s comment on the defendant’s exercise of his fifth amendment right to remain silent may constitute error requiring reversal. However, the rule has no application where, as here, the defendant did not remain silent, and after receiving Miranda warnings, gave a statement. The fact that a defendant omits details in his statement is certainly not the kind of silence which is constitutionally protected as the defendant does not remain silent with respect to the subject matter of his statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Foster“the focus would be on whether the prior charges were `unsubstantiated,' in effect putting the complainant on trial as to the truthfulness of any complaint to the police which did not result in arrest or conviction”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.