Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 N.C. 69 - State v. McGuire

State v. McGuire’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State v. Blackstock (1985), State v. Moore (1994)

42 state decisions

18019791980199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Faretta v. California · United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina

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

  1. “"When such an incident involving an unexpected emotional outburst occurs, the judge must act promptly and decisively to restore order and to erase any bias or prejudice which may have been aroused. Whether it is possible to accomplish this in a particular case is a question necessarily first addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. `Not every disruptive event occurring during the course of trial requires the court automatically to declare a mistrial,' and if in the sound discretion of the trial judge it is possible despite the untoward event, to preserve defendant's basic right to receive a fair trial before an unbiased jury, then the motion for mistrial should be denied. On appeal, the decision of the trial judge in this regard is entitled to the greatest respect. He is present while the events unfold and is in a position to know far better than the printed record can ever reflect just how far the jury may have been influenced by the events occurring during the trial and whether it has been possible to erase the prejudicial effect of some emotional outburst. Therefore, unless his ruling is clearly erroneous so as to amount to a manifest abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “if there occurs during the trial ... conduct inside or outside the courtroom, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to defendant's case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “never `clearly and unequivocally' asserted his desire to conduct a pro se defense.”
    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.