State v. Jalbert’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2003
7 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 · United States v. Streifel · State v. Gardner · State v. Morton · State v. Flemming
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Automatic Discovery. (1) Duty of the Attorney for the State. The attorney for the state shall furnish to the defendant within a reasonable time: (A) A statement describing any testimony or other evidence intended to be used against the defendant which: (i) Was obtained as a result of a search and seizure or the hearing or recording of a wire or oral communication; (ii) Resulted from any confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; or (iii) Relates to a lineup, showup, picture, or voice identification of the defendant; (B) Any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant. [[Image here]] (2) Continuing Duty to Disclose. The attorney for the state shall have a continuing duty to disclose the matters specified in this subdivision. [[Image here]] (d) Sanctions for Noncompliance. If the attorney for the state fails to comply with this rule, the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion may take appropriate action, which may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: requiring the attorney for the state to comply, granting the defendant additional time or a continuance, relieving the defendant from making a disclosure required by Rule 16A, prohibiting the attorney for the state from introducing specified evidence and dismissing charges with prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Foy
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.