Wease v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2024
1 federal appellate · 11 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 · Jusino v. Brown · Gibson v. United States · Jackson v. United States · Harris v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence must be offered for a proper purpose; (2) the evidence must be relevant; (3) the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) upon request, the trial court must instruct the jury that the similar acts evidence is to be considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Volpi v. State · Heywood v. State“that where the specific date is not a required element of the crime, then alleging a general time period in Hen of a specific date, is sufficient to give a defendant notice and allow him to adequately prepare a defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1) The reprehensible nature of the prior bad act. The prior bad act is no more reprehensible than the charged crimes; therefore, it is not likely a jury would be tempted to punish Defendant for the prior bad act based on its reprehensible nature. 2) The sympathetic character of the alleged victim of the prior bad act. The victim in the prior bad act was approximately 11 years old, a minor younger than both HG & KA. There is a chance that based on the younger age of the vie-tim in the prior bad act the jury may view that victim as especially vulnerable or more vulnerable than the alleged victims in the charged crimes; therefore, there is a higher likelihood the jury would be tempted to punish Defendant for the prior bad act based on the sympathetic character of the victim. However, this likelihood is mitigated somewhat because Defendant was convicted for the prior bad act. 4) The comparative enormity of the charged erime and the prior bad act. The prior bad act is no more serious than the charged conduct; therefore, the introduction of the prior bad act is not likely to place Defendant in a different and unfavorable light.”
1 later decision 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.