121 Wis. 2d 237 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Booth v. State (1987), 226 Wis. 2d 164 - State v. Agnello (1999)
34 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 Griffin v. California · Arizona v. Washington · Desist v. United States · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n · United States v. Masters
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“evidence prejudicial. Since Wallerman maintained his challenge to the State's proof of motive and intent, the calculus of whether the probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice never tipped towards exclusion. See § 904.03, STATS. We also note that the trial court carefully instructed the jury immediately after the State presented its”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Let's reflect first upon the opening statement that was given by [the defendant]. First of all just as in my opening statement you understand that [the defendant] was not testifying. [The defendant] was not under oath, [the defendant] was not subjecting himself to cross examination in that opening statement. What he said he was entitled to say just as I was entitled to tell you what I did during my opening statement but it was not evidence, not when I said what I said and when [the defendant] said what he said but remember some of the things he said in that prepared statement he read. He said that the State would not he able to prove what he intended to do on that evening. I submit to you that we have proved beyond any doubt whatsoever what he intended to do that evening and we will review that evidence and see whether you don't agree with me on that.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Moeck
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.