117 Wis. 2d 359 - State v. Neave’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

cited by 65 later decisions

states following

November 2017

most recently cited

65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 175 Wis. 2d 684 - State v. Koch (1993), Martinez Chavez v. State (1989)

65 state decisions — followed in 12 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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1827

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Pointer v. Texas

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

“"[w]henever a trial court is put on notice that the accused [a criminal defendant in that case] has a language difficulty, the court must make a factual determination of whether the language disability is sufficient to prevent the defendant from communicating with his [or her] attorney or reasonably understanding the English testimony at the preliminary hearing or trial. If the court determines that an interpreter is necessary, it must make certain that the defendant is aware that he [or she] has a right to an interpreter and that an interpreter will be provided for him [or her] if he [of she] cannot afford one. Any waiver of the right to an interpreter must be made voluntarily in open court on the record." Neave , at 375 (footnote omitted).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Tai V. Le · 331 Ill. App. 3d 662 - People v. Williams
“(1) To translate during the defendant's testimony if he takes the stand; (2) to facilitate communication between the defendant and his English speaking attorney; and (3) to enable the defendant to reasonably understand the trial proceedings conducted in English.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Tai V. Le · 184 Wis. 2d 860 - APPOINTMENT OF INTERPRETER IN STATE v. Le
“The least we can require is that a court, put on notice of a defendant's severe language difficulty, make unmistakably clear to him that he has a right to have a competent translator assist him, at state expense if need be, throughout his trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 433 Pa. Super. 518 - Commonwealth v. Wallace · 481 So. 2d 1201 - Suarez v. State

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.