3 Wash. App. 691 - State v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 1999
18 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jackson v. Denno · 76 Wash. 2d 449 - State v. Gefeller · 26 Wash. 2d 405 - State v. Cooper · 77 Wash. 2d 136 - State v. Van Auken
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he rule in Washington is: It is mandatory that before introducing evidence of any custodial statement, the prosecution must offer to prove, in the absence of the jury, that the statement was freely given and is untainted by coercive influence. The procedure to be followed in presenting such proof is prescribed by CrR 101.20W. But a defendant may waive a 101.20W hearing. If he does so, knowingly and intentionally, there should be no hearing. It would be a moot and useless procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[H]e must in fact be surprised, and he must make a timely claim that he is. He must additionally request a continuance of the trial for a reasonable time in order that his counsel may prepare to cross-examine the witness and he may secure rebuttal testimony if it is available, and also make it appear that he will be prejudiced if such opportunity be not afforded him. State v. Willis, 37 Wn.2d 274, 278 , 223 P.2d 453 (1950).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vavra
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.