State v. Crocker’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Silhan (1981), State v. Gardner (1986)
94 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 State v. Hicks · State v. Beal · State v. . Bell · In Re the Custody of Gupton · State v. Tyson.
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.
““The two kinds of necessity, i.e., ‘physical necessity’ and the ‘necessity of doing justice’ were so classified by Boyden, J., in S. v. Wiseman, 68 N.C. 203 . As to ‘physical necessity,’ he said: ‘One class may not improperly be termed physical and absolute; as where a juror by a sudden attack of illness is wholly disqualified from proceeding with the trial; or where the prisoner becomes insane during the trial, or where a female defendant is taken in labor during the trial.’ As to ‘necessity of doing justice,’ he said that this arises from the duty of the court to ‘guard the administration of justice from fraudulent practices; as in the case of tampering with the jury, or keeping back the witnesses on the part of the prosecution.’ “It will be observed that ‘the necessity of doing justice’ is not an expression connoting a vague generality but one that relates to a limited subject, namely, the occurrence of some incident of a nature that would render impossible a fair and impartial trial under the law. In S. v. Wiseman, supra, the basis for mistrial was ‘tampering with the jury.’ In S. v. Bell, 81 N.C. 591 , and in S. v. Washington, 89 N.C. 535 , 45 Am. Rep. 700 , a juror had fraudulently procured himself to be put on the jury for the purpose of acquiting the defendant in a trial for murder. In S. v. Cain, 175 N.C. 825 , 95 S.E. 930 , a juror had given a false answer to the solicitor bearing upon his fitness and qualifications to serve as a juror. ...””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is well established that the plea of former jeopardy cannot prevail on account of an order of mistrial when such order is entered upon motion or with the consent of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our holding here is that the facts and circumstances set forth in the findings of fact are not of such compelling nature as to justify a further relaxation of a rule of such importance in safeguarding the life and liberty of a citizen against repeated prosecutions for the same offense. The preservation of the salutary principle underlying the plea of former jeopardy in capital cases is of far greater importance than the service by this defendant of the prison term imposed . . . The uncertainty, anxiety and expense of two trials for the capital felony of murder in the first degree, within themselves, constitute an ordeal that is the equivalent of substantial punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.