14 Wis. 2d 119 - Johns v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2005 · most notably 57 Wis. 2d 344 - Wold v. State (1973), 53 Wis. 2d 751 - Champlain v. State (1972)
40 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 Bruno v. United States · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Reggel · Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran · People of the State of Illinois Ex Rel John McNichols v. James Pease
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[tjhese incidental fringe benefits, however, are not the real purpose of a preliminary examination, which is intended 'to protect the accused from hasty, improvident, or malicious prosecution and to discover whether there is a substantial basis for bringing the prosecution and further denying the accused his right to liberty.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““At first blush, one would think, as contended for by Johns, it was the duty of the trial court to invariably give such an instruction in a criminal case when the defendant does not take the stand. The duty is based on the reasoning that such an instruction is favorable to the defendant, is part of the law of the case, and counsel for the accused has a right to expect the trial court to give such an instruction without any request. However, this reasoning finds very little support in the cases which have considered the problem and there exists among trial judges and trial counsel a division of opinion. It is believed the giving of such an instruction might do more harm in directing the jury’s attention to the failure of the defendant to testify than not to give an instruction. . . . “We conclude the trial court did not commit error, in the absence of a request by the accused, in not instructing the jury the omission of the accused to testify on his own behalf created no presumption against him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““By the great weight of authority, it is not error for the trial court not to give an instruction that no presumption arises from the failure of the accused to take the witness stand in his own behalf in the absence of a request therefor by the accused.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rowan 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.