Wainwright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Robertson v. State (1991), 111 Wash. 2d 641 - State v. Sargent (1988)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 174 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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Massiah 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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Campbell v. Burris · Mills v. State“Nor does the fact that the defendant’s statement was made after he was placed alone in a cell render it a purely spontaneous one. Indeed, the opportunity to mull over the effect of [the codefendant’s] accusatory statements could reasonably have had the opposite effect — to impress upon the defendant the seriousness of his predicament and the need to rebut his codefendant’s accusations. Any attempt to “spark” the accused’s initiative to make a statement in the absence of counsel through presentation of evidence will contaminate the waiver, [citations omitted],”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his Court, in the exercise of its appellate authority, will generally decline to review contentions not raised below and not fairly presented to the trial court for decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Norwood v. State · DIORIO 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.