Ramos v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably McKay v. State (1985), Drew v. State (1987)
113 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 · Griffin v. California · Fahy v. Connecticut · Knowles v. United States · Keefe v. State of Arizona
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"the language used must be looked to from the standpoint of the jury, and the implication that the language used had reference to the defendant's failure to testify must be a necessary one. It is not sufficient that the language might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion thereto."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Suber v. State““ ‘Was he making any sense in his statements ? He talked like a drunk. He was saying things that didn’t make sense, something here and something there. Did any of the witnesses ever change their mind that he was intoxicated. No, they didn’t. Under our laws after a man is arrested he cannot he compelled to give evidence against himself. He doesn’t have to take the stand. It’s in the charge. * * ’ “Appellant then interrupted the prosecutor’s argument with an objection and moved for a mistrial; the trial judge overruled both.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ford v. State · Pinney v. State““When the utterance of certain words constitutes or is part of the details of an act, occurrence or transaction which in itself is relevant and provable, the utterance may be proved as a verbal act, just as may be a visual observation of an event. This is not hearsay evidence; it is not admitted for the purpose of proving the truth of what was said, but for the purpose of describing the relevant details of what took place. One of the several qualifications for admissibility of this type of statement is that ‘the words must be contemporaneous with the conduct, or, in the usual phrase, must accompany the act.’ ” (Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 1767, Vol. VI, p. 180.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walker v. State · Perez v. State
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.