State v. D'ALO’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably State v. Burke (1987), State v. Pacheco (1984)
25 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 Harris v. New York · Walder v. United States · United States v. Havens · Leh v. General Petroleum Corp. · State v. Infantolino
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Bench conferences frequently serve to permit the court and counsel to resolve some nonevidentiary matter, such as housekeeping problems with exhibits or difficulties with witness availability or other rather inconsequential procedural questions. When a bench conference involves resolution of such nonmaterial matters, stenographic recording is clearly unnecessary. Occasionally, however, the court may also resolve more serious matters at the side bar, such as evidentiary objections or objections to the judge’s jury instructions. Although it is within the discretion of the trial justice to allow or not to allow counsel to raise such ma-ferial matters at bench conferences, when convenience and efficiency are served thereby, such conferences may be allowed and should be recorded.” Id., 435 A.2d at 321 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bishop““falsely states a specific fact, the prosecution will not be prevented from proving, either through cross-examination or by calling its own witnesses, that he lied as to that fact. The rationale behind this rule is not difficult to perceive, for even if the issue injected is irrelevant or collateral, a defendant should not be allowed to profit by a gratuitously offered misstatement.” Id. at 320 (quoting United States v. Beno, 324 F.2d 582, 588 (2d Cir.1963), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 880 , 85 S.Ct. 147 , 13 L.Ed.2d 86 (1964)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tutt“[a]ny defendant in a criminal trial who testifies in his own behalf runs the risk of having his credibility impeached. By testifying, he places his own credibility in issue.”
1 later decision 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.