Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 Ind. 677 - Siberry v. State

Siberry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1893

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
16
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Kiefer v. State (1958), Bernard v. State (1967)

4 federal appellate · 80 state decisions — followed in 16 states

150189319001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Garfield v. State · Cowan v. State · Rhodes v. State · Carr v. State · Brown v. State

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

  1. ““ * * * A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as the jury are able to give a reason for. * * *””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It would seem that counsel for the defense, in their argument, desired to base their defense, or gain some advantage for their client, on some supposed testimony of the Campbells, or some fact in relation to the Camp-bells not before the jury, and stepped outside the bounds of legitimate argument to discuss the absence of the Campbells, and their supposed knowledge of the case; and that counsel for the state felt called upon to answer it, and did so. * * * This mode of conducting an argument in either a criminal or civil case is to be condemned; but when counsel for the defense step outside the bounds of the case, and indulge in the discussion of matters not before the jury, and thus pursue a line of illegitimate argument, it comes with ill grace and with poor favor to ask the court to restrain opposing counsel from answering such illegitimate argument, and prevent them from clearing away the rubbish illegitimately brought into the case, and casting it out that it may not mislead the jury. * * * It is immaterial to determine whether the statements of counsel were strictly within the bounds of legitimate argument or not. As the door was opened for it by counsel for the appellant, they cannot complain if counsel for the state" walked in at the door which they had opened.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““It puts upon the defendant the burden of furnishing to every juror a reason why he is not satisfied of his guilt, with the certainty which the law requires, before there can be a conviction. There is no such burden resting on the defendant or a juror in a criminal case.””
    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.