State v. Flint’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2021
12 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 Ohio v. Roberts · California v. Green · Allen v. United States · Lee v. Illinois · United States v. Inadi
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The judicial process assigns tasks to the people involved in the case, the various units. It is the task of the witnesses to testify truthfully to the facts as they recall them, as-tfaeyrecall the facts. It is the task of the lawyers to prepare the case for final submission to the trier of the facts, the jury. It is the task of the Judge to preside, to instruct you as to the law, and to rule on the adnussibility-ofithe whether certain evidence will be allowed at trial. It is the task of the jury to decide the case. The ultimate responsibility of the-jury is to-render a verdict- in this cause. You are not partehsan-nor are you-advocates in this matter; you are the neutral iudgesrvou-are the-tndges of the facts. It is you and you alone that can render a verdict in decide this cause. There is no reason to believe that any other 12 men and women people would possess any more ability, intelligence, and courage to do the ultimate task assigned to a jury under the American system of justice. The-final test-of the quality of your service wHhbe in the verdict which-you return to this-Gourtr Rris-only by rendering a verdict in this cause that-you can make a definite contribution to efficient judicial administration as youarrive at a-justeand-possible verdict. The purpose of this instruction is to encourage you to collaborate with vour fellow jurors in order to reach a iust and fair verdict in this case. This instruction is not meant to coerce or to force a verdict. You should take as m”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Norquay“Proscribing the use of dynamite instructions does not restrict a trial court ... from polling the individual jurors, and depending on the responses and appearances, then when appropriate guiding them toward another appropriate period of deliberation. This assumes, of course, that the jurors do not declare themselves deadlocked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pullin“[w]e are restricted to the record before us and may not consider matters outside the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Taylor
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.