443 So. 2d 546 - State v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

105

cited by 105 later decisions

cited 1 times by the Supreme Court

states following

October 2018

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 101 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Wilson (1985), Tichnell v. Maryland (1984)

2 federal appellate · 101 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gideon v. Wainwright · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Rhode Island v. Innis

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

“where an attorney runs into a conflict because he or she is required to cross-examine a witness who is testifying against the defendant and who was or is a client of the attorney.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 896 So. 2d 1236 - State v. Bell · 861 So. 2d 118 - State v. Cisco
“* * * * * * MR. DREW: Okay, did any time that you talked to the defendant on the date of the robbery, did he ever say anything to you about the victim being armed... MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, at this time we're going to move for a mistrial. MR. DREW: What did I say? MR. JOHNSON: You said on the date of the robbery. MR. DREW: Your Honor, I don't know where that came from. I'll retract that. There was no robbery, I apologize to the Court about that. MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, we still would move for a mistrial. THE COURT: The motion for mistrial will be denied. The jury will be instructed to disregard that statement, any statement made as to any other offense other than what the defendant's on trial for here today. * * * * * * La.C.Cr.P. art. 770 states: Upon motion of the defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: * * * * * * (2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible; ... * * * * * * An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however, requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 480 So. 2d 952 - State v. Sampson · 554 So. 2d 1317 - State v. Sharlhorne
“Id. As a general rule, therefore, Louisiana courts have held that an attorney laboring under an actual conflict of interest cannot render effective legal assistance to the defendant she is representing. Id. The issue of conflicting loyalties usually arises in the context of joint representation, but it can also arise”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 861 So. 2d 118 - State v. Cisco · 206 So. 3d 474 - State v. Walker

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.