State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Hale (2008), State v. Hand (2006)
2 federal appellate · 90 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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Bradley · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Smith v. Phillips · State v. Long
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An erroneous jury instruction does not constitute plain error unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Those portions which recite matters beyond the witness' personal observations, such as notes regarding another witness' statement or the officer's investigative decisions, interpretations and interpolations, are privileged and excluded from discovery under Crim. R. 16(B)(2).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Upon completion of a witness' direct examination at trial, the court on *Page 6 motion of the defendant shall conduct an in camera inspection of the witness' written or recorded statement with the defense attorney and prosecuting attorney present and participating, to determine the existence of inconsistencies, if any, between the testimony of such witness and the prior statement. {¶ 15} "If the court determines that inconsistencies exist, the statement shall be given to the defense attorney for use in cross-examination of the witness as to the inconsistencies. {¶ 16} "If the court determines that inconsistencies do not exist, the statement shall not be given to the defense attorney and he shall not be permitted to cross-examine or comment thereon. {¶ 17} "Whenever the defense attorney is not given the entire statement, it shall be preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.”
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.