State v. Starks’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2016
8 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 Dunaway v. New York · Irving III v. Mississippi · United States v. Thevis · Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith · United States v. Turkish
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As noted by the Second Circuit in [United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1980)] the two major arguments against granting such judicial use immunity are that the immunity decision would carry the courts into policy assessments which are the traditional domain of the executive branch, and that the immunity would be subject to abuse. . “We find these arguments persuasive, and agree that the immunity decision requires a balancing of public interests which should be left to the executive branch. . . . “Nor are we convinced that any safeguards imposed on the grant of judicial use immunity adequately reduces the risk of abuse by co-defendants, co-conspirators, friends, or employees. Whatever may be gained in fairness in a particular trial in which true exculpatory evidence may be obtained only through judicial use immunity, therefore, may well be lost through the subsequent effect of abuse on the integrity of the judicial process as a whole. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Robinson“Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or to provide other information in a criminal proceeding ... the court, on motion of the county attorney [or] other prosecuting attorney ... may order the witness to testify or to provide other information. The witness may not refuse to comply with such an order of the court on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the court, on motion of the county attorney [or] other prosecuting attorney . . . may order the witness to testify .... [N]o testimony or... any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony . . . may be used against the witness in any criminal case except in a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or failing to comply with the order of the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robinson
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.