State v. Nott’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2011
20 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 · Griffin v. California · Chambers v. Mississippi · Doyle v. Ohio · Boyd 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a criminal trial, a defendant has the absolute right not to be called as a witness. Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 10. In Kansas this right had been made statutoiy law as well as by the enactment of K.S.A. 60-423(a) which provides: ‘Every person has in any criminal action in which he or she is an accused a privilege not to be called as a witness and not to testify.’ (Emphasis supplied.) “If a defendant desires to testify in his or her own trial, he or she may do so. In so doing defendant waives the right not to be called as a witness in his or her trial.” State v. Nott, 234 Kan. 34, 36 , 669 P.2d 660 (1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Mr. Nott, is it not a fact that Mr. Kirk and Mr. Whitaker were not present when you and Jerry and Allen Cavin broke in the Wetmore school? “Mr. Nott, are you the one that placed Mr. Whitaker’s drivers license in the school? “What did you and the Cavin boys do with the stuff that you stole from the Wetmore school?” 234 Kan. at 53 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Ladd““ ‘In order to be entitled to a severance [for the purpose of obtaining the testimony of a codefendant], the movant must demonstrate: (1) a bona fide need for the testimony; (2) the substance of the testimony; (3) its exculpatory nature and effect; and (4) that the codefendant will in fact testify if the eases are severed.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Falke
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.