Aaron v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2007 · most notably United States v. Wade (1967), State v. Troupe (1996)
2 federal appellate · 114 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 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette · 31 Cal. 2d 555 - People v. Slobodion · Aaron v. State · Batson v. State Ex Rel. Davis · Dyer 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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"§ 52. In civil and criminal cases, either party shall have the right to examine jurors as to their qualifications, interest, or bias that would affect the trial of the case, and shall have the right, under the direction of the court, to examine said jurors as to any matter that might tend to affect their verdict."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The general rule is that evidence by a third party of an extrajudicial identification is admissible in rebuttal of testimony tending to impeach or discredit the identifying witness, or to rebut a charge, imputation or inference of falsity. . . ."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We hold that the testimony of Dr. Murchison that the prosecutrix identified appellant was admissible at the time it was adduced. It was competent because it was in rebuttal of the inference raised on cross-examination of the prosecutrix and Dr. Murchison that the identification of the appellant by the prosecutrix was manufactured. "The prosecutrix was cross-examined about her failure to identify appellant as her assailant when he was in a lineup at *Page 18 her home shortly after she had been attacked, and also as to her identification of him at the jail on July 7th. Dr. Murchison was also cross-examined as to the number of men in the lineup when the prosecutrix failed to identify appellant. The effect of this cross-examination was to raise the inference that, since the prosecutrix had not identified appellant in the lineup on the day of the attack, evidence of her subsequent identification of him at the jail on July 7th was manufactured. "This question was raised and settled in the case of Yarbrough v. State , 105 Ala. 43 , 16 So. 758 , 760 . The assaulted witness, Cole, had testified that he knew and identified the defendant at the time of the assault, but he did not have the defendant arrested until several months later. Cole was cross-examined as to whether he did not swear out a warrant for the defendant until one Polly Foster had been arrested and had told Cole that the defendant and another had conspired to rob him. Then Polly Foster, a witness for the State, was cros”
2 later decisions 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.