Wintjen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2010
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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 · Davis v. Alaska · Bland v. State · Ward v. State · Jacobs 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law in Delaware is settled on this point and it is contrary to what Wintjen argues. Briefly stated, corroboration of accomplice testimony is not required, absent extraordinary circumstances. Bland v. State, Del.Supr., 263 A.2d 286 (1970); Jacobs v. State, Del.Supr., 358 A.2d 725 (1976). In this case there is no ‘irreconcilable conflict’ in the testimony of defendant’s alleged accomplices which might otherwise warrant removal of the case from consideration by the jury. Bland, supra., 263 A.2d at 288 . Rather the testimony of the accomplices is substantially consistent. Its credibility was a matter for the jury to weigh. Wintjen’s first argument is without merit.” Id. at 781 (Footnote omitted).”
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.