State v. Kerley’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1987 · most notably State v. Fox (1968), State v. Potter (1978)
60 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 Delli Paoli v. United States · Kirby v. United States · United States v. Falcone · Metropolitan Ry Co v. Church Brightwood Ry Co · United States v. Toner
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““None of the cited cases supports the view that the codefendant’s plea of guilty is competent for consideration as evidence against the defendant then on trial. “When request therefor is made, it is the duty of the trial judge to instruct the jury that a codefendant’s plea of guilty is not to be considered as evidence bearing upon the guilt of the defendant then on trial and that the latter’s guilt must be determined solely on the basis of the evidence against him and without reference to the codefendant’s plea. Babb v. United States, 218 F. 2d 538 (C.C.A. 5th); United States v. Toner, [ 173 F. 2d 140 (C.C.A. 3rd)]; United States v. Hall, [178. F. 2d 853 (C.C.A.. 2nd)]; O’Shaughnessy v. United States, 17 F. 2d 225 (C.C.A. 5th). “Reference is made to the cases cited in two Annotations: 43 A.L.R. 2d 1004 ; 48 A.L.R. 2d 1016 . In the latter, the annotator, after noting that a mere reference to a codefendant’s plea or conviction may not be deemed sufficiently prejudicial under the circumstances of a particular case to warrant a new trial, states: ‘Where, however, a prosecuting attorney urges such other conviction as justification for the jury to find the accused guilty or urges or implies that it is evidence of the accused’s guilt, real prejudice results and requires not only prompt but forceful action by the trial court to eliminate the harmful effect; under some circumstances, even curative instructions to the jury will not eradicate the prejudice to the accused.’ The cases cit”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hines · State v. Taborn““While Powell and Kerley were indicted jointly, the crime was several in nature. The guilt of one was not dependent upon the guilt wf the other. If one were convicted or pleaded guilty, this would not be evidence of the' guilt of the other; nor would the acquittal of one be evidence of the innocence of the other. * * * ””
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.