Greenfield v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Johnston (1988), 31 Cal. 3d 18 - People v. Shirley (1982)
3 federal appellate · 103 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Estes v. Texas · Rideau v. Louisiana · United States v. Edwards
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Most experts agree that hypnotic evidence is unreliable because a person under hypnosis can manufacture or invent false statements. [Citations omitted.] A person under a hypnotic trance is also subject to heightened suggestibility. McCormick, Law of Evidence, § 208 at 510 (2d ed. 1972). There it is said: “ ‘Declarations made under hypnosis have been treated judicially in a manner similar to drug-induced statements. The hypnotized person is ultrasuggestible, and this manifestly endangers the reliability of his statements. The courts have recognized to some extent the usefulness of hypnosis, as an investigative technique and in diagnosis and therapy. However, they have rejected confessions induced thereby, statements made under hypnosis when offered by the subject in his own behalf, and opinion as to mental state based on hypnotic examination.’ (Footnotes omitted.) See also Note: ‘Hypnotism, Suggestibility and the Law,’ 31 Neb. L. Rev. 575 , 576 (1952). “In fact, we have held that ‘truth serum’ test results were properly excluded by the trial court because they were unreliable and led to self-serving answers.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a state of mind of persons of sound mind suffering from some voluntary or involuntary agency rendering them unaware of their acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where not self-induced, unconsciousness is a complete defense to a criminal homicide.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riley v. Com.
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.