315 So. 2d 769 - State v. Thibodeaux’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2004 · most notably Commonwealth v. Moran (1982), 340 So. 2d 157 - State v. Jenkins (1976)
1 federal appellate · 30 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 State v. Birbiglia · State v. Williams · Leithman v. Vaught · State v. Bessa · State v. Johnson
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Jointly indicted defendants shall be tried jointly unless: "(1) The state elects to try them separately; or "(2) The court, on motion of the defendant, and after contradictory hearing with the district attorney, is satisfied that justice requires a severance." (Emphasis supplied.)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith · State v. Harvey“"[I]t is clear that defenses of co-defendants are mutually antagonistic where each defendant attempts to place the blame on the other. Under such circumstances, a defendant must defend not only against the state, but also against his co-defendant. In such an instance, justice would require a severance. "However, mere allegations that the co-defendant intends to point an accusatory finger at the defendant as his own defense is not enough. Article 704 requires the defendant seeking a severance to satisfy the trial judge by convincing evidence that justice requires a severance. While the granting or refusal of the motion for severance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, his rulings are subject to our review for abuse." 315 So.2d at 771 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McGraw · State v. Smith“required him, in effect, to stand trial before two accusers, the state and [his co-defendant],”
3 later decisions 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.