192 W. Va. 124 - State v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2022
23 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 Chapman v. State of California · Fahy v. Connecticut · Turner v. Louisiana · 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas · Gonzales v. Beto, Corrections Director
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where constitutional rights are involved, the United States Supreme Court in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963), set forth the federal standard in regard to harmless constitutional error. The paramount question that must be answered in making this determination is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ Id. at 86-7 , 84 S.Ct. [at] 230, 11 L.Ed.2d at 173 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and trial by a fair and impartial jury, pursuant to amendment VI and amendment XIV, section 1 of the United States Constitution and article III, sections 10 and 14 of the West Virginia Constitution are violated when a sheriff, in a defendant’s trial, serves as bailiff and testifies as a key witness for the State in that trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is true that at the time they testified in open court Rispone and Simmons [deputy sheriffs] told the trial judge that they had not talked to the jurors about the case itself. But there is nothing to show what the two deputies discussed in their conversations with the jurors thereafter. And even if it could be assumed that the deputies never did discuss the case directly with any members of the jury, it would be blinking reality not to recognize the extreme prejudice inherent in this continual association throughout the trial between the jurors and these two key witnesses for the prosecution."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Pierce
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.