State v. Gervais’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably State v. Gold (1980), Commonwealth v. Triplett (1975)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Harris v. New York · Walder v. United States · Costello v. United States · 36 Cal. 2d 222 - People v. Zerillo · Brady v. State
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Most courts . . . have circumscribed the admissibility of such declarations [against penal interest] with certain specific safeguards; this protects the State interest while at the same time essential justice and common fairness are afforded the accused. A rule which made every declaration against penal interest admissible in evidence under any and all circumstances could seriously handicap the administration of justice. Such a rule would open the door to defendants to produce perjured and fraudulent ‘confessions’ . ‘To what extent a confession or admission of a third party is free of collusion and bears the indicia of trustworthiness is a question which . . . should be entrusted ... to the sound discretion of the trial judge.’ Brady v. State, 1961, 226 Md. 422 , 174 A.2d 167 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holt““Nothing in this opinion is intended to intimate the views of this Court concerning the admissibility, for purposes of impeachment, of a conviction which is not fínai and is under appeal, where such testimonial inquiry into a defendant’s prior criminal record is initiated by the State on cross-examination, and the defendant has not opened up the question in the presentation of his case in chief.’’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dunn““The limits of proper cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the presiding Justice and on review we look only to see whether or not there was any abuse of that discretion.””
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.