Bryant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Lodowski v. State (1986), Dempsey v. State (1976)
97 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 Allen v. Williamson · Ralph v. State · Grammer v. State · Presley v. State · Grammer v. Maryland
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On cross examination and under questioning by the court this witness testified that appellant had probably taken heroin within several hours prior to the confession and was probably under its influence, but appeared normal in all respects, responding coherently to questioning, including many answers involving details as to dates and times. The appellant’s counsel did elicit from the witness the fact that the appellant was probably under the influence of narcotics at the time of the confession, but this does not of itself make the confession not free and voluntary. In People v. Waack (Cal.), 223 P. 2d 486 , the defendant was charged with unlawfully furnishing and administering narcotics to another. In rejecting the defendant’s contention that his confession was not freely given due to his being under the influence of narcotics, the court said, at page 489: ‘The question is not whether the defendant was suffering from the effects of a narcotic when the statements were taken, but whether such statements were freely and voluntarily given by defendant at a time when he knew and understood what he was saying.’ In that case, as in the instant case, the defendant gave detailed statements as to times and places to the police.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . [T]here is persuasive authority in other jurisdictions, if not in Maryland (Bell v. United States, 47 F. 2d 438 ; Lindsey v. State (Fla.), 63 So. 832 ; State v. Grear (Minn.), 10 N. W. 472 ; Ray v. State (Ala.), 97 So. 2d 594 ; Eiffe v. State (Ind.), 77 N.E.2d 750 ; People v. Townsend (Ill.), 141 N.E.2d 729 , cert. den. 355 U. S. 850 , [ 78 S. Ct. 76 ,] 2 L. Ed. 2d 60 , [rehearing denied,] 355 U. S. 886 , [ 78 S. Ct. 152, 2 ] L. Ed. 2d 116 [(1957)] that confessions made while under the influence of self-administered narcotics may be admitted in evidence against the accused. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.