301 So. 2d 653 - State v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2006
23 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 Leland v. Oregon · Alexander v. Louisiana · Hoyt v. State of Florida · Cicenia v. Lagay · Granza 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Defendant argues, however, that the rule which allows the defendant to discover written confessions should be extended to include oral confessions. This court has consistently refused to extend this rule which was first announced in State v. Dorsey, 207 La. 928 , 22 So.2d 273 (1945). Discovery by defendant in criminal cases is greatly restricted. In State v. Dorsey, supra, the court realized that it was in effect creating an exception to the rule that the defendant is not allowed to discover the evidence on which the prosecution bases its case. The court specifically limited the holding to a written confession by the accused. * * * * * * Pretrial inspection of evidence, even of confessions, is not a question of constitutional proportions. There is no statute requiring the production of `oral confessions.' Probably for the reason that the management of a scheme requiring such production would be difficult and complicated, Louisiana courts have consistently refused to extend the rule for production to oral statements of the accused." [Citations deleted.]"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"... The defendant must make a prima facie showing the Negroes were systematically excluded from the jury. Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972). However, mathematical standards are not the determinative factor. The facts of each case must be examined to determine whether systematic exclusion has occurred. * * * * * * "The defense offered no evidence which showed that there was a systematic exclusion. The stipulated evidence shows that the composition of the jury venires was not in proportion to the general population of the parish. However, absent a showing of a selection system that was not racially neutral this court cannot find that the defendant has established a prima facie case on this point."”
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.