Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 Wash. App. 263 - State v. Gant

6 Wash. App. 263 - State v. Gant’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
June 1996
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 68 Wash. 2d 416 - State v. Baxter · 25 Wash. 2d 319 - State v. Swan · 4 Wash. App. 243 - State v. Cashaw · 73 Wash. 2d 692 - State v. Duckett · State v. Ryan

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.

  1. “[tjhere inheres in this statute the mandatory provision that no inference of guilt shall arise from the failure of a wife to testify for or against her husband, or for a husband to testify for or against the wife. It follows that the full protective force of the statute is not secured if the silence of the wife be construed against the husband in a criminal action like the case at bar. The remarks of the prosecuting attorney upon the failure of appellant to waive the privilege, which was his, of not permitting his wife to testify against him, constituted prejudicial comment. Counsel for the state violated the spirit of the provision of the constitution, Art. I, § 9, that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against himself. If counsel for the state be permitted to comment to the jury on the failure of a defendant to testify in a criminal case, or to comment on the refusal of a defendant to waive the privilege afforded him by the statute (Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1214), the full protective force of the constitution (Art. I, § 9) that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against himself, and the provision of the statute that a wife may not testify for or against her husband without his consent, would be insecure.”
    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.