194 Wis. 2d 160 - State v. Eison’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Koller (2001), 223 Wis. 2d 270 - State v. Delgado (1999)
40 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 · 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr · 102 Wis. 2d 58 - Hartung v. Hartung · 119 Wis. 2d 788 - State v. Shillcutt · 116 Wis. 2d 510 - State v. Poh
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) INQUIRY INTO VALIDITY OF VERDICT OR INDICTMENT. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon the juror's or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may the juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the juror's testimony concerns extraneous information (rather than the deliberative process of the jurors), (2) that the extraneous information was improperly brought to the jury's attention, and (3) that the extraneous information was potentially prejudicial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“contemplated in § 906.06(2), Stats., is information that is not of record and is not part of the general knowledge we expect jurors to possess. It is information that a juror obtains from a non-evidentiary source. Extraneous information, in contrast with the commonly known facts and experiences we expect jurors to rely on in reaching their verdict, comes”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.