430 So. 2d 627 - State v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 436 So. 2d 475 - State v. Kahey (1983), 505 So. 2d 714 - State v. Brooks (1987)
81 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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"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; ... (2) When the remark or comment is made by a witness or a 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."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“The constitutional standard of fundamental fairness requires that a defendant be judged by a panel of impartial and unbiased jurors. This does not mean, however, that they must be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. State v. Willie, 410 So.2d 1019 (1982); State v. Bell, 315 So.2d 307 (La.1975). In some instances we have determined that a juror, who has read or heard about the case, can sufficiently lay aside his impression or opinion of defendant's guilt or innocence and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. See most recently, State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983). Usually it is incumbent upon the defendant "to demonstrate the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality." State v. David, supra ... and most recently, in State v. Monk, 454 So.2d 421 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), our brothers of the Third Circuit, with whom we agree, stated: There is a presumption that a juror's answers on voir dire are truthful. Irvin v. Dowd, [ 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) ] The trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause which ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Sylvester, [ 400 So.2d 640 (La.1981) ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the time delay between the original request and subsequent interrogation, whether Miranda warnings were given before each separate interrogation, whether waiver of rights forms were signed, and whether or not pressures were asserted on the accused by the police between the time he invoked his right ... and the subsequent interrogation.”
3 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.