445 So. 2d 815 - House v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably Rock v. Arkansas (1987), State v. Johnston (1988)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 State v. Hurd · 5 Md. App. 230 - Harding v. State · United States v. Miller · United States v. Awkard · Jordan 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]s the field of expertise one in which it has been scientifically established that due investigation and study in conformity with techniques and practices generally accepted within the field will produce a valid opinion? Where the answer to this question is in the affirmative, we generally allow expert testimony.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The hypnotic session or sessions must have been administered by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis. (2) Any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel, by the defendant or from any other source prior to the hypnotic session should be in written form and should be preserved so that subsequently the extent of the information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined. (3) Before induction of hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them, carefully avoiding any new elements to the witness' description of the events. The witness' pre-hypnotic memory should be preserved via tape recording or, if possible, video tape. (4) The entire procedure of hypnosis and the hypnotic interview should be tape recorded or, if possible, video taped. (5) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and post-hypnotic interview. (6) The opposing party or parties should have full access, prior to trial, to the recording of the hypnotic interview. See Rule 4.06, Miss. Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice. (7) All opposing parties must be given free rein to cross-examine the hypnotically-induced witness and/or the hypnotist [footnote omitted] regarding the witness' memory and the particular procedure used to refresh it. (8) No hypnotically-enhanced statements ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Alexander v. State · Zani 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.