Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 N.W.2d 359 - State v. Clark

State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably State v. Stroud (1984), 170 W. Va. 123 - State v. Goodmon (1981)

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

2601980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Agurs · Rhode Island v. Innis

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * [jjf the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed. This means that the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial. On the other hand, if the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The prosecutor’s use of the statement in [his] case in chief could not have influenced defendant to take the stand to explain inconsistencies, since the only inconsistency was in the state’s own evidence and that inconsistency was exculpatory. It is plain that defendant’s [testifying] was prompted by the fact that the incriminating evidence, although circumstantial, was substantial, and defendant’s presentation of his explanation of that evidence to the jury required that he, as the sole witness, testify.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “While Miranda bars the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made during a custodial interrogation without first effectively waiving constitutional rights, it does not preclude use of such statements for impeachment purposes so long as the statements are voluntary and trustworthy.”
    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.