State v. Bradford’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably State v. Pabst (2000), State v. Elnicki (2005)
90 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 Bruton v. United States · Brown v. United States · Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist · State v. Bly · State v. Lamb
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" . [T]he rule supported by most of the courts is that if tire evidence demands or warrants a conviction of a higher degree of homicide than that found by the verdict . . . the defendant is not entitled to a reversal or a new trial on die ground diat the court instructed on die lower degree of homicide as to which diere is no evidence, the dieory being that he is not prejudiced thereby and cannot complain. . . .’ [Citation omitted.]””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he erroneous admission of evidence during a trial does not in every case require a reversal of a conviction. [Citation omitted.] A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials. [Citations omitted.] Not every admission of inadmissible evidence can be considered to be reversible error; instances occur in almost every trial where inadmissible evidence creeps in, usually inadvertently. K.S.A. 60-261 requires the courts of Kansas to disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. This rule known as the harmless error rule applies unless the error is of such a nature as to amount to a denial of substantial justice. [Citation omitted.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lumley““ ‘A relevant factor in determining whether an erroneous admission of evidence is harmless error is the weight of evidence supporting the conviction. . . . We are convinced upon a review of the whole record that the evidence was of such direct and overwhelming nature and showed appellant’s guilt of the two offenses charged to such extent that admission of the California conviction could not have affected the result of the trial and therefore its admission must be deemed harmless error.’ ” 219 Kan. at 338 (quoting State v. Fennell, 218 Kan. 170, 174 , 542 P.2d 686 [1975]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lumley
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.