State v. Nieto’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Trujillo (2002), State v. JAVIER M. (2001)
88 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Oregon v. Mathiason · California v. Beheler · Stansbury v. California
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we observe the distinction between factual determinations which are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review and application of law to the facts [,] which is subject to de novo review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tapia · State v. Montano“To be sure, evidence of gang affiliation could be used improperly as a backdoor means of introducing character evidence by associating the defendant with the gang and describing the gang’s bad acts ____ however, evidence of gang affiliation that might otherwise be inadmissible character evidence may be admissible to show other important elements of the crime. [The expert witness’s] testimony, both as to Defendant’s affiliation with the 18th Street Gang and the specific rituals and procedures of that gang, was admissible to show Defendant’s alleged motive (to rise up in the ranks of the gang by performing a hit on its behalf) and intent to murder the victims. Defendant also urges that evidence of Defendant’s association with 18th Street Gang, and the bad acts of that particular gang, was unfairly prejudicial. Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or if it confuses the issues or misleads the jury. Here, as evidence of Defendant’s motive and intent, the testimony had considerable probative value----In light of the probative value of this testimony,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The detective] first defined the word “gang” and listed the criteria used by his unit to identify gangs. After identifying the 18th Street Gang as the largest gang in Albuquerque, [the detective] testified that Defendant was one of its members. [The detective] described the hierarchical structure of gangs, including the violent means of gang initiation and the procedures by which already initiated members rise in the ranks.”
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.