Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 Kan. 44 - State v. Davidson

State v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Conley (2000), State v. Dixon (2009)

58 state decisions

4201998200020102020decided

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 Illinois v. Allen · Estelle v. Williams · Holbrook v. Flynn · Taylor v. Kentucky · Schiro v. Clark

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"`Prior to giving jury instructions, I want to make a note of one thing which occasionally arises and is often unexplained. If you'll recall, during either the opening statement or the voir dire examination, it was pointed out that Mr. Davidson is in custody, pending this trial. As part of the standard operating procedure of the Johnson County Sheriff's Department, the defendants who are in custody and are in trial are equipped with a leg brace which disables them from attempting to run. This is done in any case in which a defendant happens to be in custody. "`I mention that only for the purpose of indicating to you that it is not—the brace isn't there because of any disability of the defendant.'"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Control of an individual in custody from the jail to the courtroom and from the courtroom to the jail is the responsibility of the sheriff. All defendants have the right to appear before the jury free of restraints because such restraints present an unacceptable risk of prejudice and compromise the presumption of innocence. It is the judge's responsibility to insure that the defendant receives a fair trial. In extreme situations, a particularly obstreperous and disruptive defendant may be ordered to be restrained in the courtroom by the judge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors influencing the jury.”
    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.