Yopps v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Herring v. New York (1975), 22 Mass. App. Ct. 10 - Commonwealth v. Miranda (1986)
24 federal appellate · 93 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Shedlock v. Marshall · Comi v. State · People v. Don Carlos
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Constitutional right of a defendant to be heard through counsel necessarily includes his right to have his counsel make a proper argument on the evidence and the applicable law in his favor, however simple, clear, unimpeached, and conclusive the evidence may seem, unless he has waived his right to such argument, or unless the argument is not within the issues in the case, and the trial court has no discretion to deny accused such right.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The ruling of the trial court [declining in a nonjury case, to hear argument of counsel after a prior pronouncement by the court of a guilty verdict] was manifestly prejudicial to the right of the accused to be represented by counsel throughout the entire trial and amounted to a denial of his rights under Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights of this State. While time is important to the court it is also important to the accused, whose life or liberty hangs in the balance. Through his counsel, no matter how convincing the evidence may appear to be, the accused has the right to subject all the facts and evidence produced at the trial to a logical analysis." 228 Md. at 208 , 178 A.2d at 882 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Step down. “THE COURT: Anything else? “DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That is our case, your Honor. “THE COURT: Any rebuttal? “PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: No, your Honor. “THE COURT: The verdict is guilty. * * * “DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You didn’t even ask me for argument in this case to point out the fact that these, that whoever saw these people there never saw them carrying anything back and forth. “THE COURT: It is a question of balancing the testimony of what I heard from these witnesses as against his, who I believe, and perfectly obvious who I must believe under the circumstances. “DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You are not giving the benefit of the doubt. “THE COURT: Wouldn’t change my mind about it. “DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You must have corpus delicti of some kind and the explanation is reasonable. “THE COURT: I don’t think it is----Maybe they will disagree with me upstairs and you have a right to go up there. “DEFENSE ATTORNEY: All right, sir....””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Covington v. State
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.