State v. Hoeplinger’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably State v. Blades (1993), State v. Bova (1997)
74 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 Griffin v. California · Patterson v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our legislature has given statutory recognition to this right by virtue of its enactment of General Statutes § 54-84 . 20 In determining whether a prosecutor's comments have encroached upon a defendant's right to remain silent, we ask: Was the language used manifestly intended to be, or was it of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify? . . . Further, in applying this test, we must look to the context in which the statement was made in order to determine the manifest intention which prompted it and its natural and necessary impact upon the jury. . . . Finally, [w]e also recognize that the limits of legitimate argument and fair comment cannot be determined precisely by rule and line, and something must be allowed for the zeal of counsel in the heat of argument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The state may, however, comment on a defendant's failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government's case . . . as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is well settled that comment by the prosecuting attorney . . . on the defendant's failure to testify is prohibited by the fifth amendment to the United States constitution.”
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.