Birchett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Pyle v. State (1993), Bell v. State (1998)
2 federal appellate · 42 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 Gregory v. United States · Harris v. State · State v. Manus · Vasquez v. State · 74 Wash. 2d 386 - State v. White
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is evident [that the girlfriend] was not a true rebuttal witness. Her testimony was not merely in response to evidence presented by the defense---- Rather, this appears to be an instance of a witness who could have been presented in the state’s case in chief being withheld until rebuttal. Her testimony impeached responses drawn from the appellant during his cross-examination. The questions asked of appellant during cross seem clearly designed to manufacture a rebuttal situation for a presentation of the state’s evidence that belonged in its case in chief—evidence that was not genuinely in response to anything presented by appellant in his defense. Under these circumstances, the witness should not have been granted rebuttal status.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. State““If a witness is proper for the state’s case in chief, the prosecution is required to notify the defendant of the name and address of that witness upon timely request. [Arkansas Criminal Rules of Procedure] 17.1(a)®. If a witness is a genuine rebuttal witness there is not such requirement. If the witness is not a true rebuttal witness, the prosecution must comply with Rule 17.1 by notifying the defense that such witness will be called.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright 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.