34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

336

cited by 336 later decisions

states following

September 2023

most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 312 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 336 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably State v. Curry (1975), 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr (1983)

10 federal appellate · 312 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 Chapman v. State of California · Fahy v. Connecticut · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Stack v. Boyle

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 336 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[T]he standards of relevancy should be stricter when prior-crime [or other acts] evidence is used to prove identity or the doing of the act charged than when the evidence is offered on the issue of knowledge, intent or other state of mind. McCormick, Evidence (hornbook series), p. 331, sec. 157.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 139 Wis. 2d 424 - State v. Evers · 76 Wis. 2d 72 - Sanford v. State
“(1) The overstrong tendency to believe the defendant guilty of the charge merely because he is a person likely to do such acts; (2) the tendency to condemn not because he is believed guilty of the present charge but because he has escaped punishment from other offenses; (3) the injustice of attacking one who is not prepared to demonstrate the attacking evidence is fabricated; and (4) the confusion of issues which might result from bringing in evidence of other crimes.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 139 Wis. 2d 424 - State v. Evers · 108 Wis. 2d 723 - State v. Alsteen
“[e]vidence of prior crimes or occurrences should be sparingly used by the prosecution and only when reasonably necessary. Piling on such evidence as a final `kick at the cat' when sufficient evidence is already in the record runs the danger, if such evidence is admitted, of violating the defendant's right to a fair trial because of its needless prejudicial effect on the issue of guilt or innocence. The use of such evidence under the adopted rule will normally be a calculated risk.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 222 Wis. 2d 233 - State v. Davidson · 179 Wis. 2d 484 - State v. Clark

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.