State v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “prevent surprise and to allow adequate time for preparation of the defense, as well as to avoid certain problems that had been attendant to mentioning of confessions or inculpatory statements in the state's opening statement.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Olive · 256 So. 3d 365 - State v. Alexander

2. “In State v. Reed, 324 So.2d 373 (La. 1975), this court applied the long-standing federal rule in this area that a defendant in a criminal case who takes the stand in his own behalf and testifies without asserting his privilege against self-incrimination thereby waives the privilege as to the testimony given so that it may be used against him in a subsequent trial of the same case. Id. at 380 . See, Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968); United States v. Bohle, 475 F.2d 872 (2nd Cir.1973); Edmonds v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 373 , 273 F.2d 108 (1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 977 , 80 S.Ct. 1062 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1012 . Not only is this the federal rule, but numerous other states have also provided that when a defendant testifies at a first trial but not at the second, his prior testimony may be used against him. See, e.g. State v. Norwood, 217 Kan. 150 , 535 P.2d 996 (1975); State v. Slone, 45 Ohio App.2d 24 , 74 Ohio Ops.2d 66, 340 N.E.2d 413 (1975); Chavez v. State, 508 S.W.2d 384 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Harbaugh v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 695 , 167 S.E.2d 329 (1969). See generally, Cook; Constitutional Rights of the Accused—Trial Rights, Sec. 66 (1974). Therefore, the introduction of the transcript did not violate defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 699 So. 2d 903 - State v. Graves · 734 So. 2d 674 - State v. Bishop

3. “Id. at 499 (emphasis added). The kinds and amounts of costs, however, were not fixed. The sole issue before the court focused on the propriety of the district court's assessment of all costs against the defendant for the first trial, which ended in a mistrial, and the second trial, which resulted in his conviction. While holding”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 943 So. 2d 559 - State v. Rideau