State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “* * * The considerations which determine the extent to which a change of law shall be applied to cases then pending is discussed in both Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882, 889 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1204-1205 . Important factors include the purpose of the new rule; the extent to which the old standard had been relied upon; and the effect a particular kind of application will have on the administration of justice. Underlying all of these is the basic inquiry as to how seriously the discarded rule affected the `very integrity of the fact-finding process' or produced `the clear danger of convicting the innocent.' "Both Johnson v. New Jersey and Stovall v. Denno point out that the extent to which a new rule of criminal procedure should be applied varies from case to case depending on the `peculiar traits' of the rule in question and the `degree' to which it affects the fact-finding process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thrasher · State v. Boyd

2. “For instance, the Miranda requirements (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ) for determining the voluntariness of statements are applied only to trials subsequent to the date of that opinion. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882, 892, 893 . That case gives the same restricted application to Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 . "Stovall v. Denno * * * [ 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ] limits the effect of newly adopted pre-trial identification procedures to those conducted after the date of the decisions in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 1178 . In Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831 , 89 S.Ct. 1498 , 23 L.Ed.2d 16 , the court refused to apply the standards of rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to any case in which a plea had been entered prior to the court's opinion in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 , which had set out the new rules in question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thrasher

3. ““When a defendant voluntarily and understanding^ pleads guilty with full knowledge of his constitutional rights and has been informed of the consequences of his guilty plea, it is immaterial whether he gave a prior confession or statement without being advised of his right to remain silent, of his right to counsel, and that his statements could be used against him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sudduth