Archer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Dickey v. State (2008), Smith v. State (2006)
2 district · 35 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 Crawford v. Washington · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · United States v. Hasting · Webb v. Texas · Dorsey 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we were discussing sentencing in the Jackson case, we think the standard we enunciated there is applicable. “ ‘If a judge’s comments during [the proceedings] could cause a reasonable person to question the impartiality of the judge, then the defendant has been deprived of due process and the judge has abused his or her discretion.’ ” Jackson, 364 Md. at 207 , 772 A.2d at 281 -282 (quoting Nebraska v. Pattno, 254 Neb. 733 , 579 N.W.2d 503, 509 (1998)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It has often been said that a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial, minimally, means a fair and impartial judge. A criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right, to confront a witness for the prosecution for the purpose of cross-examination or to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. Both rights are fundamental ele ments of due process of law, and a violation of either could hamper the free presentation of legitimate testimony ----If a defendant’s attorney is intimidated by a trial judge’s unwarranted or unduly harsh attack on a witness or the attorney himself, then the defendant’s constitutional right to effective representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is impinged.... A ... final interest of a criminal defendant that may be affected by a trial judge’s manner of warning a witness is the defendant’s due process right to trial before an impartial tribunal. A fair jury in jury cases and an impartial judge in all cases are prime prerequisites of due process. It is a maxim that every litigant, including the State in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge....”
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.