Bryan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Dudley v. State (1985), Sharp v. State (1989)
1 federal appellate · 39 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Stevens v. Marks · Loyd v. State · Maldonado v. State · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rely on what they hear rather than on what they read when there is a difference.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Small v. State · Grimes v. State“Because the need for transcripts is generally caused by two circumstances, inaudibility of portions of the tape under the circumstances under which it will be replayed or the need to identify the speakers, it may be appropriate, in the sound discretion of the trial judge, to furnish the jurors with copies of a transcript to assist them in listening to the tapes. In the ordinary case, this will not be prejudicially cumulative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Small v. State · Romo v. State“The best evidence of the conversation is the tape itself; the transcript should normally be used only after the defendant has had an opportunity to verify its accuracy and then only to assist the jury as it listens to the tape. If accuracy remains an issue, a foundation may first be laid by having the person who prepared the transcripts testify [that] he has listened to the recordings and accurately transcribed their contents. Because the need for transcripts is generally caused by two circumstances, inaudibility of portions of the tape under the circumstances under which it will be replayed or the need to identify the speakers, it may be appropriate, in the sound discretion of the trial judge, to furnish the jwrors with copies of a transcript to assist them in listening to the tapes. In the ordinary case, this will not be prejudicially eumulative. Transeripts should ordinarily not be read to the jury or given independent weight. * * * Transeripts should ordinarily not be admitted into evidence unless both sides stipulate to their accuracy and agree to their use as evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Romo 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.