Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 Vt. 303 - State v. Garceau

State v. Garceau’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Shattuck (1982), State v. Rebideau (1974)

36 state decisions

160196119701980199020002010decided

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 Boyd v. United States · People v. Zackowitz · Tyrrell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · State v. Parker · People v. Gougas

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

  1. ““It is not that character is irrelevant to the question of innocence or guilt, but policy forbids it until the accused has elected to make it an issue. The reason for the rule of exclusion lies in the tendency of triers of the fact to give excessive weight against the accused to a vicious criminal record. Moreover, it tends to obscure the main issue and calls upon the accused to account for past offenses for which he is not being tried. The natural and inherent effect of evidence or other unrelated offenses upon the minds of the jury is to prejudice them against the respondent. State v. Howard, 108 Vt. 137, 155 , 183 A. 497 ; see also, 1 Wigmore, Evidence, supra, and §194 p. 646.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The harm, once done, is not necessarily erased nor the error corrected by a subsequent charge to the jury to disregard it. Indeed, it may well be that irreparable prejudice has been caused before the court can inter vene, and thereafter any attempt to remove it from the case is futile. [Citations omitted.]”
    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.