State v. Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably State v. Pierce (1989), State v. Barnum (2000)
39 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 Griffin v. California · Coleman v. State
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Article I, § 19 of the Missouri Constitution provides, in part, ‘That no person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal cause, . . . ” This language prohibits not only comments on the failure of a defendant to testify . but also comments which have the effect of compelling a defendant to testify. The use of language which has either effect must be condemned [c]onduct which naturally and necessarily has the effect of denying an accused a fair trial can never be harmless.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wright · State v. Reed““Mr. Lindsey doesn’t have to go forward with any evidence if he doesn’t wish to. He doesn’t have to take the stand if he doesn’t want to — _””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reed · State v. Ford“MS. LUCE: I anticipate the defendant will be putting on a defense. He will be, I anticipate, saying that possibly— MR. MAPLES: Objection to speculation, Your Honor— THE COURT: Ms. Luce, approach the bench, please, Mr. Maples. [Counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings were had out of the hearing of the Jury] THE COURT: Although the defendant has not objected to this opening statement, Ms. Luce, this is beyond opening statement, you’re now arguing your case. I’m going to ask you to present what you intend to prove and not argue your ease. MS. LUCE: I just know he’s using the affirmative defense of an alibi and that— THE COURT: Again, present your opening statement as to what you intend to prove. That’s what an opening statement is. MR. MAPLES: Judge, if I could elaborate on my objection as to her speculation, I do object that she’s speculating what we’re going to put on as evidence, she started to say “he.” “He” could only refer to the defendant. And I believe there was a reference to evidence that the defendant is expected to present and could be construed as a reference to the defendant testifying. I object on that basis and it infringes on his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. And I would ask that she be instructed not to refer to that and I would request a mistrial. THE COURT: Your request for mistrial will be overruled. However, your objection will be sustained. And Ms. Luce, you are directed not to make any reference to anything the defense may or ma”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thurlo
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.