184 Wis. 2d 324 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 227 Wis. 2d 285 - State v. Scheidell (1999), State v. Payano (2009)
56 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Davis v. Alaska · Burks v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If [the defendant] truly owned the disputed property and if [the ex-girlfriend] truly attempted to gain possession of the property following her accusation against him and his resultant incarceration, the credibility of [the defendant]'s theory of defense is obviously enhanced. We conclude that the rejected evidence was highly probative to [the defendant]'s theory of defense. .... Although other witnesses testified, this case essentially turned on the jury's assessment of the credibility issue drawn between [the ex-girlfriend] and [the defendant]. [The defendant]'s proffered evidence, if believed, offered a plausible scenario as to why [the ex-girlfriend] might have falsely accused him.... ... In most instances, as the probative value of relevant evidence increases, so will the fairness of its prejudicial effect. Thus, the standard for unfair prejudice is not whether the evidence harms the opposing party's case, but rather whether the evidence tends to influence the outcome of the case by "improper means." We fail to see how [the defendant]'s proffered evidence constitutes an improper means to influence the outcome.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter · State v. Payano“[n]early all evidence operates to the prejudice of the party against whom it is offered.... The test is whether the resulting prejudice of relevant evidence is fair or unfair.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
3 later decisions 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.