State v. Haynie’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Detweiler (1996), State v. Bronson (1993)
76 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 Illinois v. Gates · Bram v. United States · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Washington v. Harper · In re Disbarment of Graves
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) defendant is in custody at the time of the statement, (2) defendant is alone and unrepresented by counsel, (3) the promise or inducement is initiated by prosecuting officials as opposed to defendant or someone acting on his behalf, (4) defendant is aware of his constitutional and other legal rights, (5) the potentially incriminating statement is part of an abortive plea bargain, (6) the promise or inducement leading to the statement is fulfilled by prosecuting authorities, and (7) defendant is subjected to protracted interrogation or evidence appears on the record to show that coercion precludes the statement from being knowing and intelligent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should consider the defendant’s age, mentality, education, experience, and social and cultural background, as well as his or her past criminal record or law-abiding conduct, motivation for the offense, nature of the offense, and the amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Defense counsel:] You did tell him that it would help him if he would confess, didn’t you? “A. It could help him. “Q. You did tell him that? “A. I said it could help him, yes. “Q. In fact, you mentioned at one point in the tape, ‘/ am sure the judge will take that into consideration ’ ? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. So basically you told him that it could help him if he confessed and if he told you what he did that you would be a lot easier on him? “A. That it would look better for him. “Q. That it would look better for him? “A. Right. “Q. And you were telling him that even before he admitted doing anything on either of these robberies? “A. I was probably telling that all the way through in talking about all of the robberies.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ray
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.