State v. Mitjans’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Olson (1992), State v. Gray (1990)
26 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 Garrett v. United States · Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board · State v. Back · State v. Norton · Wass v. Anderson
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In evaluating the translation of testimony, a reviewing court asks whether the translation was adequate and accurate on the whole. 'Translation is an art more than a science, and there is no such thing as a perfect translation of a defendant's testimony. Indeed, in every case there will be room for disagreement among expert translators over some aspects of the translation.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he issue would be a hearsay issue because the other officer, who speaks only English, could testify only to what [the translating officer] said defendant had said. Some courts have reasoned that the interpreter normally may be viewed as an agent of the defendant and that therefore the translation is attributable to the defendant as his own admission and is admissible under rule 801(d)(2). We express no opinion on this issue but point out that under the agency theory of admissibility the case for admission of the defendant's statements in a criminal prosecution is certainly stronger if the interpreter on whose interpretation the witness relies is the defendant's own interpreter or an independent interpreter appointed to assist the defendant rather than one employed as a police officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lopez-Ramos“[f]ollowing the apprehension or arrest of a person disabled in communication for an alleged violation of a criminal law”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lopez-Ramos
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.