Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 NW2D 864 - State v. Kimball

State v. Kimball’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Lakeside v. Oregon (1978), Brown v. State (1981)

40 state decisions — followed in 11 states

27019701980199020002010decided

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 Griffin v. California · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · United States v. Kelly · Hanks v. United States · Hunter v. United States

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

  1. “"The question now is whether an instruction which tells the jury no inference can be drawn from defendant's failure to testify violates the Griffin rule in the absence of a request for such instruction. The cases since Griffin have been gathered in an annotation in 18 A.L.R.3rd 1335. An overwhelming majority of the recent cases hold it is not reversible error. [cf. statement in Gross v. State, supra , that the annotation shows courts are about evenly divided.] "* * * "* * * "It is not claimed the instruction given is an erroneous statement of the law. It is claimed to be prejudicial because it calls the jury's attention to defendant's failure to take the stand. "* * * "* * * "We must recognize, however, that the instruction is a comment on defendant's failure to testify even though it is supposedly for defendant's benefit and is designed to keep the jury from speculating on the reasons for his failure to take the stand and drawing improper inferences therefrom. There are those who believe the instruction is more harmful than helpful and regardless of how favorably to the accused the instruction may be worded it may inadvertently cause the jurors to consider certain adverse inferences which would not otherwise have entered their minds." ( 176 N.W.2d at 868, 869 ).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Since Griffin v. State of California (1964), 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , we have held comments and instructions drawing inferences of guilt from defendant's failure to testify violate the Self-incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and constitute reversible error. * * [citing authorities].”
    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.