State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably State v. Brown (1995), State v. Decaro (2000)
122 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 · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas · Washington v. Texas · State v. Golding
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The sixth amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversary system.... The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played.... "We recognize, however, as have most courts addressing the issue, that exclusion of [evidence supporting a defense, such as the testimony of an alibi witness,] may not be justified in all cases where the defendant has failed to comply with the discovery rules. The trial court must weigh the need for exclusion against the defendant's right to present a defense.... The decision is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will turn on the facts of the particular case. Factors which the trial court must consider include: whether the disclosure violation was technical or substantial, the timing of the ultimate disclosure, the reason, if any, for the violation, the degree of prejudice to the parties respectively offering and opposing the evidence, whether any resulting prejudice might be cured by a postponement and, if so, the overall desirability of a continuance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the accused is not permitted to introduce the [victim's] entire criminal record into evidence in an effort to disparage his general character; only specific convictions for violent acts are admissible .... Nor is the accused authorized to introduce any and all convictions for crimes involving violence, no matter how petty, how remote in time, or how dissimilar in their nature to the facts of the alleged aggression. In each case the probative value of the evidence of certain convictions rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Jordan
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.