Turman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Davis v. State (1983), State v. Suggs (1984)
80 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Detenber v. American Universal Insurance Co · Coyote v. United States · Neeley v. State · Jones v. State
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"informing him of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the offense charged and of any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions, and of any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences ..."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““Surely we are indulging in nothing more than legal fictions and semantic gymnastics when we say in a circumstance such as this that the defendant did not plead guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Defendant was represented in court by a very experienced and very competent defense attorney.... We said in Neeley v. State, (1978) [ 269 Ind. 588 ] 382 N.E.2d 714 , that the better practice would be for the trial courts in accepting guilty pleas to follow the language of Ind.Code (Burns 1975) § 35-4.-1-1-3 to the letter and therefore remove any and all questions regarding the defendant’s knowledge of his rights and the voluntariness of his plea. We also said in the Neeley case and many other cited by the majority here that we will look to the entire record to determine whether under all the circumstances the defendant did enter his plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, and further that we would not require the trial court to use the exact language of the Constitution or the statutes if, in fact, the record shows that the meaning was conveyed to the defendant.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. McKinney v. State“"We would not ordinarily disturb the trial court's weighing of the evidence where two statements regarding the privilege of self-incrimination conflicted. However, the weight of the judge's erroneous statement in open court would certainly outweigh the impact of a contrary but correct statement of the law contained in the plea agreement entered into at an earlier date. Again we are led unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court, that petitioner was not properly advised of his privilege against self-incrimination as provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." 892 N.E.2d at 488.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sides 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.