Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 305 N.W.2d 677 - State v. Wounded Head

State v. Wounded Head’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
4
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2007

14 state decisions

110198119902000decided

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 Davis v. Alaska · Douglas v. Alabama · Alford v. United States · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Gordon 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Whatever temporary embarrassment might result to [the witness] or his family by disclosure of his juvenile record — if the prosecution insisted on using him to make its case — is outweighed by petitioner’s right to probe into the influence of possible bias in the testimony of a crucial identification witness. [[Image here]] The State’s policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record cannot require yielding of so vital a constitutional right as the effective cross-examination for bias of an adverse witness. The State could have protected [the witness] from exposure of his juvenile adjudication in these circumstances by refraining from using him to make out its case; the State cannot, consistent with the right of confrontation, require the petitioner to bear the full burden of vindicating the State’s interest in the secrecy of juvenile criminal records.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted but only if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party or the accused and the crime: (1) Was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted; or (2) Involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible under § 19-14-12. 2 The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.”
    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.