419 So. 2d 939 - State v. Stucke’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 449 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Watson (1984), 898 So. 2d 1219 - State v. Higgins (2005)
83 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 Manson v. Brathwaite · United States v. Nobles · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones · United States v. Amaral
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he prejudicial effect of such testimony outweighs its probative value because of the substantial risk that the potential persuasive appearance of the expert witness will have a greater influence on the jury than the other evidence presented during the trial. Such testimony invades the province of the jury and usurps its function.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Laymon · State v. Bozeman“`specialized knowledge' of an expert in the form of opinion evidence would assist the jury in deciding the question of identity,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In the following cases, upon the request of the defendant or the state, the court shall promptly admonish the jury to disregard a remark or comment made during the trial, or in argument within the hearing of the jury, when the remark is irrelevant or immaterial and of such a nature that it might create prejudice against the defendant, or the state, in the mind of the jury: (1) When the remark or comment is made by the judge, the district attorney, or a court official, and the remark is not within the scope of Article 770; or (2) When the remark or comment is made by a witness or person other than the judge, district attorney, or a court official, regardless of whether the remark or comment is within the scope of Article 770. In such cases, on motion of the defendant, the court may grant a mistrial if it is satisfied that an admonition is not sufficient to assure the defendant a fair trial.”
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.