State v. Gary M.B.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Hale (2005), Blum ex rel. Studinski v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance (2010)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Neder v. United States · Ohler v. United States · 153 Wis. 2d 493 - State v. Poellinger
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a circuit court gives a proper cautionary instruction, appellate courts presume that the jury followed that instruction and acted in accordance with the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is true that when convictions are revealed only on cross-examination, the revelation also warns the factfinder [about matters bearing on the defendant’s credibility], but the timing of their disclosure may do more. The jury may feel that in testifying without saying anything about the convictions the defendant has meant to conceal them. The jury’s assessment of the defendant’s testimony may be affected not only by knowing that she has committed crimes in the past, but by blaming her for not being forthcoming when she seemingly could have been. Creating such an impres sion of current deceit by concealment is very much at odds with any purpose behind [Fed. R. Evid.] 609, being obviously antithetical to dispassionate factfinding in support of a sound conclusion. The chance to create that impression is a tactical advantage for the Government, but only in the majority’s dismissive sense of the term; it may affect the outcome of the trial, but only if it disserves the search for truth. Allowing the defendant to introduce the convictions on direct examination thus tends to promote fairness of trial without depriving the Government of anything to which it is entitled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the frequency of the error, the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence, whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence, the nature of the defense, the nature of the State's case, and the overall strength of the State's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. McGowan
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.