11 Wash. App. 572 - State v. Downs’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1997
7 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 40 Wash. 2d 18 - State v. Goebel · 73 Wash. 2d 660 - State v. Huson · 73 Wash. 2d 67 - State v. Miles · 71 Wash. 2d 895 - State v. Wilson · 80 Wash. 2d 19 - State v. MacK
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not commend the conduct of the prosecuting attorney. We have no doubt that the quality of the trial would have improved in the absence of his offensive approach, but we cannot find that his conduct was reprehensible. See State v. Huson, 73 Wn.2d 660 , 440 P.2d 192 (1968). It precluded Downs from receiving a perfect trial but the record satisfies us that these improprieties did not prejudice his right to a fair trial. See State v. Green, 71 Wn.2d 372 , 428 P.2d 540 (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The trial judge can impartially observe and appraise the impact of inadmissible testimony upon the jury. His discretionary judgment that a corrective instruction and admonition effectively cures an error should be respected by the appellate court unless the record demonstrates that beyond a reasonable doubt the refusal to grant a new trial denied the defendant a fair trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“n certain situations the prejudicial effect of evidence of other crimes cannot be removed by an instruction, . . . but such evidence is not always so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial. ... A trial judge is granted wide discretion ... in determining whether to grant a mistrial.”
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.