State v. Ordog’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
4 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably 67 Cal. 2d 365 - People v. Lara (1967), 39 Ill. 2d 489 - The PEOPLE v. Hester (1968)
4 district · 50 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Culombe v. Connecticut
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is indisputable that while the admission of one defendant’s confession in a joint trial has the potentiality of prejudice to other defendants implicated by the confession, such statements are, in some circumstances, admissible. . . . Thus, where a joint trial is held and the out-of-court confession of one defendant inculpates the other, the trial court must clearly, promptly and emphatically caution the jury on the limited effect to be given to the confession. State v. Murray, 33 N. J. 393, 398 (1960); State v. Johnson, 31 N. J. 489, 506 (1960). But even then there may be situations where limiting instructions would be ineffective.” (p. 355.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. McCarty““The general rule is that subnormal mentality does not ipso facto make a confession involuntary ‘so long as the subnormality has not deprived the person in question of the capacity to understand the meaning and effect of the confession. But mental subnormality is a factor to be considered in determining the issues of voluntariness and admissibility, and, where accompanied by other factors indicative of an absence of voluntariness, will require that the confession be excluded.’ (Annot., 69 A.L.R. 2d 348 , 350; see State v. Ordog, 45 N.J. 347 , 212 A.2d 370, 377 ; People v. Lara, 62 Cal. Rptr. 586, 601 .)” Hester, 39 Ill. 2d at 500 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the judge did not specifically charge the jury on [its] duty to find corroboration, in light of his charge that the weight and credibility to be given to the confession were for the jury in the light of all the evidence”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Di Frisco
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.