Parker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2016
3 federal appellate · 19 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 Streeter v. United States · Carter v. Kentucky · Lakeside v. Oregon · Patterson v. State · Bruce v. State
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[2-5] In Indiana the choice of whether or not the trial court instructs the jury on the defendant’s failure to testify belongs to the defendant. To preserve error on this issue, the defendant must request an instruction. Hunt v. State, (1973), 260 Ind. 375, 381 , 296 N.E.2d 116, 120 . If the request is made, the trial court should advise the jury that it should not consider the defendant’s failure to testify. Carter v. Kentucky (1981), 450 U.S. 288, 303-305 , 101 S.Ct. 1112, 1121-22 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241, 254 ; Lucas v. State (1980), [274] Ind. [635], 413 N.E.2d 578, 583 . If the trial court does not comply with the defendant’s request, we will reverse the conviction, unless the State shows that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lyda v. State (1979), [272] Ind. [15], 395 N.E.2d 776, 781 . Conversely, the trial court may not give an instruction on the defendant’s failure to testify over his timely objection. Dooley v. State (1979), [271] Ind. [404], 393 N.E.2d 154, 156 (cases cited therein). Our decisions in this area do not support the defendant’s assignment of error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maez v. State“"In Indiana the choice of whether or not the trial court instructs the jury on the defendant's failure to testify belongs to the defendant. To preserve error on this issue, the defendant must request an instruction. Hunt v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 375, 381 , 296 N.E.2d 116, 120 (footnote omitted). . If the request is made, the trial court should advise the jury that it should not consider the defendant's failure to testify. Carter v. Kentucky (1981), 450 U.S. 288, 303-305 , 101 S.Ct. 1112, 1121-22 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241, 254 ; Lucas v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 635, 643 , 413 N.E.2d 578, 583 . If the trial court does not comply with the defendant's request, we will reverse the conviction, unless the State shows that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lyda v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 15, 23 , 395 N.E.2d 776, 781 . Conversely, the trial court may not give an instruction on the defendant's failure to testify over his timely objection. Dooley v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 404, 407-408 , 393 N.E.2d 154, 156 (cases cited therein)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman 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.