Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Green v. State (2013), Meadows v. State (1987)
46 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 · Chapman v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Hoffman v. United States · Counselman v. Hitchcock
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... If you notice, I’m here by myself, and this vacant chair. He might be here to tell his side but he’s not here. The story then that you will have about what happened out there will come from her ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Paulson v. State · Elser v. State“A comment on the defendant’s failure to testify may not require reversal, but before such a comment can be harmless error, the court must determine that it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). . . . Therefore, in applying the rationale of the Fifth Amendment and our own state constitution and statutory provision in the instant case, we certainly cannot say with confidence that the remark of the prosecutor did not to some extent compel the defendant to testify in her own behalf. It is fair to say that the remark resulted in pre-evidentiary coercion which is just as forbidden as is post evidentiary comment. Certainly we cannot say that the effect of the comment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To the contrary, it is precisely the sort of coercive activity the Fifth Amendment is designed to prevent. The guarantee or privilege against self-incrimination ‘must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure.’ Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951). The right to testify or remain silent is an absolute and ‘unfettered’ right for a defendant only to exercise. Unless justified, the state should not comment in any manner upon that basic right in the opening as well as closing statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Elser v. State“We are, of course, controlled by the federal requirements of the Fifth Amendment as well as our own similar constitutional and statutory provisions. Part of the requirements of the federal amendments demand that the prosecution not comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holden v. State
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.