State v. Woolcock’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1989), State v. Lewis (1991)
75 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Illinois v. Allen · Drope v. Missouri · Estelle v. Williams · Bates v. State Bar
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general proposition, a criminal defendant has the right to appear in court free from physical restraints.... Grounded in the common law, this right evolved in order to preserve the presumption favoring a criminal defendant's innocence, while eliminating any detrimental effects to the defendant that could result if he were physically restrained in the courtroom.... The right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.... The presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.... In order to implement that presumption, courts must be alert to factors that may undermine the fairness of the factfinding process. In the administration of criminal justice, courts must carefully guard against dilution of the principle that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.... Put another way, for the presumption to be effective, courts must guard against practices which unnecessarily mark the defendant as a dangerous character or suggest that his guilt is a foregone conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In reviewing the defendant's claims concerning shackling, [the appellate] standard of review is whether the trial court abused its sound discretion in acting as it did. . . . The trial court's discretion on the issue of shackling is broad. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) intent to prevent a reasonably identifiable peace officer from performing his duties; (2) the infliction of physical injury to the peace officer; and (3) the victim must be a peace officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Canada v. Gonzales
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.