State v. Walsh’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rock v. Arkansas · Rushen v. Spain · Portuondo Superintendent Fishkill Correctional Facility v. Agard · 47 Cal. 3d 983 - People v. Edelbacher · 235 Ill. 2d 478 - People v. McLaurin
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The prosecutor may permissibly east doubt about the substance of a defendant’s testimony by referring to specific evidence suggesting that the defendant engaged in tailoring. However, the prosecutor cannot ask the jury to infer the defendant’s lack of credibility from the manner in which he presented his testimony, because that inference, related only to the defendant’s presence in the courtroom, burdens the constitutional rights of defendants, specifically the right to be present at trial. Here, the inference that Respondent was not credible was not drawn from testimony, but from his rightful presence during voir dire.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Basham.“Additionally, the statements diverted the jury from its duty to decide the instant ease on the evidence, by inviting the jury to convict on the basis of conduct as consistent with innocence as with guilt. Finally, the statements were also made during closing argument, a crucial part of trial. The prosecutor argued that [the defendant] was not credible due to the exercise of his right to be present at trial, without referencing any specific evidence, at a time when [the defendant] could not respond with any evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Basham.“provides the criminal defendant with the opportunity to defend himself [or herself] through our adversary system by prohibiting ex parte trials, granting the defendant an opportunity to test the evidence in front of a jury, and guaranteeing the right to face-to-face confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Birano 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.