Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 So. 2d 814 - State v. Sears

298 So. 2d 814 - State v. Sears’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably 404 So. 2d 1202 - State v. White (1981), State v. McZorn (1975)

34 state decisions

18019741980199020002010decided

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 Kirby v. Illinois · State v. Dotson · State v. Gladden · State v. Hunter · Maguire v. United States

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

  1. “"Art. 555. Waivers Any irregularity in the arraignment, including a failure to read the indictment, is waived if the defendant pleads to the indictment without objecting thereto. A failure to arraign the defendant or the fact that he did not plead, is waived if the defendant enters upon the trial without objecting thereto, and it shall be considered as if he had pleaded not guilty."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Upon consideration, we have determined that, for the same reasons that an accused is so permitted to testify in the judge-hearing, he should be permitted at the jury trial for the jury's determination as to the weight of a confession, to take the stand for the limited purpose of testifying as to the voluntariness and validity of the confession sought to be introduced. If he does so, he is not subject to cross-examination on the case as a whole, but only as to the validity of the confession. He may also, of course, be cross-examined as to his credibility, including by impeaching him on the basis of prior convictions. "If an accused cannot do so without waiving his constitutional self-incrimination rights as to guilt or innocence, he must abandon his statutory right to have the jury consider any lesser weight it should give to the confession due to the circumstances under which it was confected. If an accused cannot do so, his evidence as to the weight of the confession (which the jury is entitled to hear) cannot be given unless the accused subjects himself to cross-examination on merit-issues irrelevant to the validity of the confession and which infringe upon his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. "As a matter of (at the least) statutory interpretation, a statutory right to have the jury hear evidence going to the weight of a confession should not reasonably be conditioned upon requiring an accused to sacrifice his constitutional rights in order to exercise the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Once the trial judge has determined that the confession is admissible, any evidence submitted to the jury regarding the circumstances surrounding the obtaining of the confession is solely for the purpose of determining the effect or weight to be given the statement. C.Cr.P. 703”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.