Griffith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably State v. Lancaster (1971), James v. Wilson (2002)
33 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 People v. Lapara · People v. Pfanschmidt · People v. Cardinelli · People v. Harrison · State v. Evans
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When accusatory or incriminating statements are made in the presence and hearing and with the understanding of the accused person and concerning a matter within his knowledge, under such circumstances as would seem to call for his denial and none is made, those statements, and the fact that they were not contradicted, denied, or objected to, become competent evidence against the defendant. ... Related to this specific rule is that which admits evidence of the circumstances when the accused makes a reply which of itself is to be regarded as an admission....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Admissibility of [an out-of-court accusatory statement] as not being tainted by the hearsay stigma is based upon the crystalization [sic] of the experience of men that it is contrary, to them nature and habits to permit statements to be made in their hearing and presence tending to connect them with an offense for which they may be made to suffer punishment without entering an objection or denial unless they are in some manner repressed or restrained or there is seemingly no natural and proper call for such contradictions. The occurrence is a fact for the jury to interpret as throwing light upon the question of guilt or innocence. Its probative force may be great or little according to the particular circumstances and the general mental and moral fiber of the person charged. Such is the rationale and the rule in this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Silence is inferred assent. If innocent, a reaction and declaration may rationally be expected of him rather than a tame submission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.