Simpson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Nooner v. State (1995), Ruiz v. State (1989)
2 federal appellate · 47 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 Davis v. Alaska · Earl v. State · Miller v. State · Swaite v. State · Cromwell 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is generally permissible for a defendant to show by cross-examination anything bearing on the possible bias of the testimony of a material witness. Bethel v. State, 162 Ark. 76 , 257 S.W. 740 ; Ringer v. State, 74 Ark. 262 , 85 S.W. 410 ; Annot. 62 A.L.R.2d 611 (1958). This rule applies to testimony given under expectation or hope of immunity or leniency or under the coercive effect of his detention by authorities. Stone v. State, [ 162 Ark. 154 , 258 S.W. 116 ]; Boyd v. State, [ 215 Ark. 156 , 219 S.W.2d 623 ]. See also Campbell v. State, 169 Ark. 286 , 273 S.W. 1035 ; Alford v. U.S., [ 282 U.S. 687 (1930)]. The test is the expectation of the witness and not the actuality of a promise. State v. Little, [ 87 Ariz. 295 , 350 P.2d 756 ]; Spaeth v. United States, 232 F.2d 776 , 62 A.L.R.2d 606 (6 Cir., 1956). * # * Denial of cross-examination to show the possible bias or prejudice of a witness may constitute constitutional error of the first magnitude as violating the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S. Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henderson 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.