White v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 169 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Jordan v. Deery (1993), Lee v. State (2004)
4 federal appellate · 169 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 Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart · Brady v. United States
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, unless the record reveals that the defendant knew or was advised at the time of his plea that he was waiving his right to a jury trial, his right of confrontation and his right against self-incrimination, Boykin will require that his conviction be vacated.”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kubiak v. State · Rose v. State“(a) The court shall not accept a plea of guilty ... without first determining that the defendant: (1) understands the nature of the crime against him; (2) has been informed that by his plea he waives his rights to: (A) a public and speedy trial by jury; (B) confront and eross-examine the witnesses against him; (C) have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses against him; (D) require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself; (8) has been informed of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the crime charged and any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions, and any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences; and (4) has been informed that if: (A) there is a plea agreement as defined by 35-35-8-1; and (B) the court accepts the plea; the court is bound by the terms of the plea agreement. [[Image here]] (c) Any variance from the requirements of this section that does not violate a constitutional right of the defendant is not a basis for setting aside a plea of guilty.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Routine reversal of convictions on technical grounds imposes substantial costs on society. Chief Justice Designate Rehnquist recently enumerated these costs, and we paraphrase his description of them. Jurors, witnesses, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors may be required to commit further time and other resources to repeat a trial which has already taken place. The victims are caused to relive frequently painful experiences in open court. The erosion of memory and the dispersal of witnesses may well make a new trial difficult or even impossible. If the latter is the case, an admitted perpetrator will be rewarded with freedom from prosecution. Such results prejudice society's interest in the prompt administration of justice, reduce the deterrent value of any punishment, and hamper the rehabilitation of wrongdoers. United States v. Mechanik (1986), [--] U.S. [--], 106 S.Ct. 938 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 ."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. State · Wilburn 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.