State v. Hilling’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Evans v. State (1976), State v. Steffes (1993)
30 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Davis v. Alaska · Berger v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carmody · State v. Johnson“[W]ith her Demand for Discovery and Inspection made pursuant to Rule 16 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure and hereby asserts as follows: [[Image here]] 5. That the prosecution furnish to [Shannon Muhle] a written list of the names and addresses of all prosecution witnesses, and any statements made by them, whom the prosecution attorney intends to call in the preparation of the case in chief, together with any records of any prior felony convictions of any of those witnesses which are within the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney. [[Image here]] 7. That the prosecution permit [Shannon Muhle] to inspect and copy or photograph any relevant written or recorded statement of any person, or copies thereof, within possession, custody, or control of the prosecution, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecuting attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Muhle“It must be noticed that [the Brady rule and Rule 16] are separate, distinct, and not necessarily related in any way to each other. ... the Brady rule and Rule 16 may compel discovery prior to the time when any witness testifies. The Brady rule, it must be emphasized, creates a duty of constitutional dimensions immediately upon the making of the demand, regardless of the stage of the proceedings at which the demand is made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Muhle
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.