343 So. 2d 149 - State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2016
1 federal appellate · 20 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Noyd v. Bond · State v. Shaffer · State v. Amphy · State v. Kreller
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The opening statement of the state shall explain the nature of the charge, and set forth, in general terms, the nature of the evidence by which the state expects to prove the charge.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams · State v. Horne“The general rule is that, absent bad faith on the part of the prosecutor or clear and substantial prejudice, the reference in the opening statement to evidence later ruled inadmissible is not a ground for a mistrial. The rule takes into account that proof frequently falls short of professional expectations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ladies and gentlemen, as I told you when we started off, I had a chance to put on rebuttal witnesses, and I didn't. I didn't think there was anything to rebut. The only witnesses that came up for the defense were BY MR. LAWRENCE: (Interrupting) Your Honor, the prosecutor is on dangerous grounds. I would like to caution him now, before he goes any further, I would like to have the Court's warning." C.Cr.P. 770(3) provides, in pertinent part: "Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: . . . . . (3) The failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense; or . . . . . An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however, requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.