State v. Jakeway’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Foster v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2006), State v. Sullivan & Sullivan (1978)
77 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 Harris v. United States · Stoner v. California · Brown v. United States · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Trudo v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether a specific instance of juror conduct falling within the broad statutory grounds defined in K.S.A. 22-3423(c) requires a declaration of mistrial is a matter of discretion with the trial court. (State v. Culbertson, 214 Kan. 884 , 522 P.2d 391 ; State v. Finley, 208 Kan. 49 , 490 P.2d 630 .) Jury misconduct will not constitute a ground for reversal unless it is shown to have substantially prejudiced the rights of either the defendant or the prosecution. (K.S.A. 22-3423[c]; State v. Collins, 215 Kan. 789 , 528 P.2d 1221 ; State v. Arney, 218 Kan. 369 , 544 P.2d 334 .) “In determining whether a particular instance of improper communication between a juror and a witness amounts to prejudicial misconduct which will prevent a fair trial the nature of the communication is of considerable significance. When the communication is entirely unrelated to defendant’s case courts generally find insufficient prejudice to require a mistrial (State v. Culbertson, supra; see also Anno., Jurors — Communications With Witnesses, 9 A.L.R.3d, § 9, p. 1289.) When the communication is related to the defendant’s case the trial court may find prejudice and then a mistrial will be declared. (State v. Finley, supra; see also Anno., Jurors—Communications With Witnesses, 9 A.L.R.3d, § 10, p. 1294.)” p. 148.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Turner
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.