State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Reyes v. State (1987), State v. Brown (1986)
34 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 Manson v. Brathwaite · Mattox v. United States · State v. Washington · 448 So. 2d 645 - State v. Davis · State v. Chopin
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Perhaps a preferable procedure would have been to have the statute read to the witness outside the presence of the jury. Defendant, however, did not make this request at trial. And even if we were to be concerned that the prosecutor was badgering the witness or implying to the jury that he should not be believed, we would still be inclined to find no prejudice accruing to the defendant. The trial court had already determined that the State could impeach the credibility of its witness by showing prior inconsistent statements, and the State had proceeded to do so. Any possible discrediting of the witness, by reading the peijury statute to him, added nothing to what the State was already attempting to do by leading questions relative to prior inconsistent statement.” State v. Spotville, supra, at 766.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reyes v. State““As was concluded in Spotville , we find that defendant suffered no prejudice from the prosecutor’s reading of the perjury statute to Balonie [the witness]. Herein, as in Spotville , the state had already begun impeaching the witness by a prior inconsistent statement; and the possible discrediting of the witness added nothing to what the state had already done by beginning impeachment of the witness. Additionally, the record does not reflect that Balonie was intimidated by the conduct of the prosecutor.” State v. Brown, supra, at 687.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reyes v. State“will not result in reversal of a conviction if it is demonstrated that the identification was reliable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.