Heinze v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably MacK v. State (1984), State v. Butler (1958)
101 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 Commonwealth v. Buccieri · Commonwealth v. Nicely · Commonwealth v. Green · Novak v. State · Commonwealth v. Haskins
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[wjhere a verdict is ambiguous, inconsistent, unresponsive, or otherwise defective, it is the duty of the trial judge to call the jury’s attention to the defect and to direct them to put the verdict in proper form either in the presence of the court or by returning to their consultation room for the purpose of further deliberation.” 11”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“.... Any member of the jury has the right sua sponte to dissent from the verdict as announced by the foreman at any time before it is recorded and affirmed by the jury. If no objection is made by any of the jurors or by the State or the accused, the verdict as announced is the verdict of the whole panel; and it is then the duty of the clerk to record the verdict and have it affirmed by the jury in the presence of the court by calling upon the whole panel to hearken to their verdict as the court has recorded it, and by repeating to them what has been taken down for record. Until the announcement that the verdict has been recorded, the jury have the right to amend or change any verdict; and when it is so amended it is the real verdict of the jury and it may be properly accepted by the court. Ford v. State, 12 Md. 514, 546 [(1859)]; Givens v. State, 76 Md. 485 , 25 A. 689 ; Grant v. State, 33 Fla. 291 , 14 So. 757 , 23 L.R.A. 723 , 731 [(1894)]; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 1412.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Travis v. State · Fletcher v. State““[t]he law does not permit the judge to suggest the alteration of a verdict in substance. He must not throw the weight of his influence into the deliberations of the jury as to matters exclusively within their province.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lattisaw v. State · Smith 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.