Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 835 - People v. Gainer (1977), 39 Cal. 3d 765 - People v. Skinner (1985)
6 federal appellate · 46 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio · Allen v. United States · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Betts v. Brady
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“place the holders of a minority viewpoint in a vulnerable position”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Silcox · Koehler v. State““ . . . [EJvidence of narcotics use or addiction will not be admissible where its only purpose would be to impeach a witness by showing that he is, by sole virtue of his addiction, inherently unreliable. Our holding does not mean that evidence of addiction to heroin will never be admissible to impeach a witness. Where evidence of addiction tends to show that the witness was under the influence of narcotics either at the time of trial or at the time of the occurrence to which he testifies, where the evidence proves that his ability to perceive, remember, and testify are substantially affected by his habit, or where such evidence would be independently admissible under some other theory, it should not be excluded.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. State · State v. Cedre“The first and most questionable feature is the discriminatory admonition directed to minority jurors to rethink their position in light of the majority's views. In the Allen opinion this concept is expressed in the following passage: `[I]f much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, upon the other hand, the majority was for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority.' ... A second controversial element in Allen -type instructions, not approved in Allen itself, is the direction ... that ` You should consider that the case must at some time be decided. '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Silcox
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.