57 Wash. App. 447 - State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 101 Wash. 2d 591 - State v. Allery · 109 Wash. 2d 832 - State v. Coe · 92 Wash. 2d 854 - Walker v. Bangs · 45 Wash. App. 692 - State v. Moon · 46 Wash. App. 656 - State v. Hanson
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the choice of a husband to interpret for a wife would normally be, at most, an abuse of the trial court's discretion, [the husband's] appointment under the facts of the instant case passes "the line of tolerable imperfection and fall[s] into the field of fundamental unfairness." . . . One can imagine few situations in which there would be a greater potential for bias by an interpreter. The trial court's appointment injected an intensely interested party into the center of an emotion-packed criminal trial to interpret the testimony of the only witness to the alleged offense. This conduct is intolerable.”
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.