State v. Garcia’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably State v. Grissom (1992), State v. Brown (2012)
2 district · 53 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 Zant v. Stephens · Yates v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California · Terminiello v. Chicago · Williams v. State of North Carolina
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he essential inquiry in determining the voluntariness of a statement is whether the statement was the product of the free and independent will of the accused.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As there were three purposes set forth in the statute, and the jury were instructed that their verdict might be given with respect to any one of them, independently considered, it is impossible to say under which clause of the statute the conviction was obtained. If any one of these clauses, which the state court has held to be separable, was invalid, it cannot be determined upon this record that the appellant was not convicted under that clause. ... It follows that instead of-its being permissible to hold, with the state court, that the verdict could be sustained if any one of the clauses of the statute were found to be valid, the necessary conclusion from the manner in which the case was sent to the jury is that, if any of the clauses in question is invalid under the Federal Constitution, the conviction cannot be upheld.” 283 U.S. at 368 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Grissom““A qualified interpreter shall be appointed in the following cases for persons whose primary language is one other than English . . . : (e) when such person is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law of the state or any city ordinance. Such appointment shall be made prior to any attempt to interrogate or take a statement from such persons.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nguyen
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.