Andrews v. Hand’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably State v. Richardson (1965), State v. Latham & York (1962)
39 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 Brown v. Allen · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Rogers v. Richmond · Blackburn v. Alabama · Spano v. People of the State of New York
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Coercion in obtaining a confession from an accused can be mental as well as physical. (Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 , 2 L. Ed. 2d 975 , 78 S. Ct. 844 ; Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315 , 3 L. Ed. 2d 1265 , 79 S. Ct. 1202 ; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199 , 4 L. Ed. 2d 242 , 80 S. Ct. 274 .) The Fourteenth Amendment forbids ‘fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence, whether true or false’ (Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236 , 86 L. Ed. 166, 180 , 62 S. Ct. 280 ), and the range of inquiry as to whether a confession was involuntarily obtained is broad. Whether a confession was freely or involuntarily given is based upon consideration of ‘the totality of the circumstances’ (Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 197 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 246, 251 , 77 S. Ct. 281 ), and where there is a genuine conflict of evidence great reliance must be placed upon the finder of fact.’ (Blackburn v. Alabama, supra.) . . .” (p. 117.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Milow““. . . It was the duty of the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of petitioner, and if it found him not guilty by reason of insanity to so declare. It was the duty of the district court to impose the proper sentence after the verdict has been reached. As held in State v. Andrews, supra, it was no concern of the jury what penalty attached to its verdict in the event it found the petitioner not guilty by reason of insanity.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Blake
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.