State v. Ritson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2001
17 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 · Griffin v. California · Fahy v. Connecticut · State v. Nirschl
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘There can be no doubt that the interjection of this evidence was error. Its sole purpose was to show that when defendant was confronted with evidence contradicting his alibi he had refused to talk and demanded counsel. It was clearly a use of defendant’s invocation of his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel as substantive evidence of guilt — otherwise it had no probative value as rebuttal of defendant’s story. Such a use is not permissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , f.n. 437 [sic], 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ; and our own holding in State v. Bowman, 204 Kan. 234 , 461 P.2d 735 ; and State v. Dearman, 198 Kan. 44 , 422 P.2d 573 , Cf. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 .’ ” [We have included the citations that were omitted in Gabrielson]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““‘. . . I asked him if they all three stayed at the auction and he said that they did. I asked him if at any time did Mr. White and Robinson (the alleged accomplices) leave the auction without him and he said no. I said at any time did they leave your sight or the vicinity you were in at the auction and he said definitely not. He said they all three stayed in the auction up until a little after 9:00 where they went straight back to Valley Center. I then approached him in the manner — or I told him that I had seen them in Wichita at 29th and Amidon and he had no answer. I said if I told you that I had seen you, and . . . gave him the time that I seen him at 8:40 p. m., I said, are you saying this would be incorrect? And he had no answer. He wouldn’t say anything. As a matter of fact, this is when I stopped talking to him. He asked for an attorney.’ ’’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jerskey v. State
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.