179 W. Va. 464 - State v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2010
2 federal appellate · 12 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 6001 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Santobello v. New York · McCarthy v. United States · Bram 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[g]uilty pleas are governed by Rule 11 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is patterned after Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” State v. Bennett, 179 W.Va. 464 , 370 S.E.2d 120 , 123 (1988). In applying our Rule 11, we have looked to the advisory committee’s note to federal Rule 11.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements. — Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions: (A) A plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; (B) A plea of nolo contendere; (C) Any statement made in the course of any proceedings under this rule regarding either of the foregoing pleas; or (D) Any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the state which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. However, such a statement is admissible: (i) In any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it; or (ii) In a criminal proceeding for false swearing if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record, in the presence of counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The federal courts uniformly hold that statements made by a defendant during a guilty plea proceeding cannot be used even to impeach the defendant if he testifies at trial. In United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir.1982), the court traced the evolution of Rule 11(e)(6) and its counterpart in Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The primary policy reason advanced in Lawson for denying a right to impeach was that it would discourage plea bargains by impairing the full and frank exchange of information. The court reasoned that “to use for impeachment purposes [plea bargain statements] will clearly affect the discussions and impair the frank and open atmosphere Rule 410 and 11(e)(6) were designed to foster.” 683 F.2d at 692 . See also United States v. Gleason, 766 F.2d [1239] at 1245 n. 8; United States v. Udeagu, 110 F.R.D. 172 (E.D.N.Y.1986); McCormick on Evidence § 159 (3d ed. 1984).”
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.