Patterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Davlin (2002), Carter v. State (2001)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · California v. Trombetta · Arizona v. Youngblood · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Johnson v. Righetti
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The failure to grant an affirmative instruction does not remove the availability of the inference. As a consequence, whatever prejudice may usually come from not giving an advisory instruction is diminished, because the inferential thought process is still available. The prejudice is simply that such an inference is not given preferred instructional attention over any other inferences available from the testimony or absence of testimony. Possibly for that reason, judges hesitate to grant the missing witness instruction; they do not wish to emphasize one legitimate inference over all others which the jurors have been told are solely within their judgment.” Yuen v. State, 43 Md.App. 109, 114 , 403 A.2d 819 [, 823] (1979).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““Instructions as to facts and inferences of facts are normally not required. When a party fails to produce evidence, an inference may be made against it. Many inferences, however, may be drawn from a missing piece of evidence and ‘emphasis of one possible inference out of all the rest by a trial judge can be devastatingly influential upon a jury although unintentionally so.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the requested instruction must be a correct statement of the law; (2) the requested instruction is applicable under the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the requested instruction was not fairly covered by the other instructions given by the court.”
2 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.