State v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Larzelere v. State (1996), 579 So. 2d 97 - Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler (1991)
65 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 Chapman v. State of California · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Acosta v. United States · Spiegel's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Rath Packing Co. Creditors' Trust v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“overt acts which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[The inquiry] must be limited to objective demonstration of extrinsic factual matter disclosed in the jury room. Having determined the precise quality of the jury breach, if any, the [trial] court must then determine whether there was a reasonable possibility that the breach was prejudicial to the defendant.... Though a judge lacks even the insight of a psychiatrist, he must reach a judgment concerning the subjective effects of objective facts without benefit of couch-interview introspections. In this determination, prejudice will be assumed in the form of a rebuttable presumption, and the burden is on the Government to demonstrate the harmlessness of any breach to the defendant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he law does not permit a juror to avoid his verdict for any reason which essentially inheres in the verdict itself, as that he "did not assent to the verdict; that he misunderstood the instructions of the Court; the statements of witnesses or the pleadings in the case; that he was unduly influenced by the statements or otherwise of his fellow-jurors, or mistaken in his calculations or judgment, or other matter resting alone in the juror's breast."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.