42 Wash. App. 425 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2004
12 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 Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Wood · 91 Wash. 2d 391 - State v. Fricks · 102 Wash. 2d 689 - State v. Jackson · 98 Wash. 2d 748 - State v. Pam
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In modern times, it is unlikely that jurors would be influenced by their employment relationship with an arm of the State that is not prosecuting the criminal action. We believe that in order for a government employee to stand "in the relation of . . . master and servant ... to the adverse party" or to be an employee of "the adverse party" under RCW 4.44.180(2), there must be a substantial relationship between the interests the prospective juror has in his employment and the interest the government is advancing as a litigant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the extent to which it was called to the jury's attention, and the possibility that from that evidence the jury may have drawn an inference unfavorable to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is only when the prosecutor unfairly uses evidence of post-arrest silence against a defendant that his due process rights to fair trial are violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Romero
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.