State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Diar (2008), State v. Roberts (2006)
1 federal appellate · 52 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Edwards v. Arizona · State v. Bradley · Smith v. Phillips · Michigan v. Mosley
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the remarks were improper and (2) if so, whether the remarks prejudicially affected the accused's substantial rights.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he touchstone of analysis `is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' This court will not deem a trial unfair if, in the context of the entire trial, it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found the defendant guilty even without the improper comments.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[If] a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning. * * * Rather, the suspect must unambiguously request counsel. * * * Although a suspect need not `speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don,' * * * he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officer stop questioning the suspect.”
3 later decisions 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.