Ware v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Commonwealth v. Grant (2002), 232 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Bannister (2008)
4 federal appellate · 139 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 · Burks v. United States · Lockett v. Ohio · Benton v. Maryland · Irvin v. Dowd
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In general.—If, before or during a trial, the defendant in a criminal case or a violation of probation proceeding appears to the court to be incompetent to stand trial or the defendant alleges incompetence to stand trial, the court shall determine, on evidence presented on the record, whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. (b) Court action if defendant found competent.—If, after receiving evidence, the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, the trial shall begin as soon as practicable or, if already begun, shall continue. (c) Reconsideration.-—At any time before final judgment, the court may reconsider the question of whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wood v. State · Roberts v. State“[W]e do not think the testimony was proper. Nevertheless, the form of the evidence reduced its prejudicial impact. Anderson made a self-serving statement to the effect that certain persons not present once affirmed, on an unknown basis, his truthfulness in making the statements he again made at trial. Such a statement, by a witness whose credibility is in question, is far less weighty than the expert testimony in Boknert, and its effect on the jury was likely to be insignificant. Moreover, it is implicit that the police believed Anderson or they would not have gone to bat for him at the hearing on his motion to reduce his sentence. Although error, we hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We are “satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of ... may have contributed to the rendition of the guilty verdict.” Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 659 , 350 A.2d 665, 678 (1976).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]s a general rule, attorneys have great leeway in closing arguments. See Degren v. State, 352 Md. 400, 429 , 722 A.2d 887, 901 (1999). Attorneys are permitted to comment on the evidence and to state all reasonable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. See Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 412-13 , 326 A.2d 707, 714 (1974). This wide latitude, however, is not unlimited and does not include the right to discuss facts not in evidence. See Degren, 352 Md. at 430 , 722 A.2d at 901-02 ; Collins v. State, 318 Md. 269, 279 , 568 A.2d 1, 6 (1990).”
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.