409 So. 2d 556 - State v. Rodrigue’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 424 So. 2d 1009 - State v. Quebedeaux (1982), 436 So. 2d 475 - State v. Kahey (1983)
51 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Escobedo v. Illinois · Brown v. Illinois
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nature of pretrial publicity and the degree to which it has circulated; (2) The connection of government officials with the release of the publicity; (3) The length of time between the dissemination of the publicity and the trial; (4) The severity and notoriety of the offense; (5) The area from which the jury is to be drawn; (6) Other events occurring in the community and affecting or reflecting the attitude of prospective jurors; (7) Factors likely to affect the candor and veracity in areas to which venue could be changed; (8) The degree to which publicity has circulated in areas to which venue could be changed; (9) The care exercised and ease encountered in jury selection; (10) Familiarity with publicity and its resultant effect on jurors; and (11) Peremptory challenges for cause exercised by the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Prestridge“The general rule is that, on trial of a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the grounds of his motion. La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). One exception to the rule is that the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the voluntariness of a confession which the defendant has moved to suppress as evidence at the trial on the merits. La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); La.R.S. 15:451; State v. Glover, 343 So.2d 118 (La.1977); State v. Johnson, 363 So.2d 684 (La.1978); State v. Bouffanie, 364 So.2d 971 (La.1978); State v. Volk, 369 So.2d 128 (La.1979); State v. Jones, 376 So.2d 125 (La.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Art. 622. Grounds for change of venue A change of venue shall be granted when the applicant proves that by reason of prejudice existing in the public mind or because of undue influence, or that for any other reason, a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish where the prosecution is pending. In deciding whether to grant a change of venue the court shall consider whether the prejudice, the influence, or the other reasons are such that they will affect the answers of jurors on the voir dire examination or the testimony of witnesses at the trial.”
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.