State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably State v. Graham (1990), State v. Ninci (1997)
35 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 · State v. Costa · State v. Prince · Thompson v. Norman · State v. Bohanan
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Declarations against interest. Subject to the limitations of [60-460] (f), a statement which the judge finds was at the time of the assertion so far contraiy to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest or so far subjected the declarant to civil or criminal liability or so far rendered invalid a claim by the declarant against another or created such risk of making the declarant an object of hatred, ridicule or social disapproval in the community that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well established that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from a custodial interrogation of the defendant unless the State demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , (1966); State v. Roadenbaugh, 234 Kan. 474, 476 , 673 P.2d 1166 (1983).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Henderson““A trial judge has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of a declaration against interest and may consider such factors as the nature and character of the statement, the person to whom the statement was made, the relationship between the parties, and the probable motivation of the declarant in making the statement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brown
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.