State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Hilton v. Braunskill (1987), Commonwealth v. Truesdale (1972)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 86 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984)
Relies on Stack v. Boyle · Kahm v. United States · 6 Cal. 3d 628 - People v. Anderson · United States v. Ash · State v. Funicello
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the seriousness of the crime charged against defendant, the apparent likelihood of conviction, and the extent of the punishment prescribed by the Legislature; (2) defendant’s criminal record, if any, and previous record on bail, if any; (3) defendant’s reputation, and mental condition; (4) the length of defendant’s residence in the community; (5) defendant’s family ties and relationships; (6) defendant’s employment status, record of employment, and financial condition; (7) the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for defendant’s reliability; [and] (8) any other factors indicating defendant’s mode of life, or ties to the community or bearing on the risk of failure to appear, and, particularly, the general policy against unnecessary sureties and detention. [if. 3:26-l(a) (emphasis added).]”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. State · In Re Tarr“... except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Persons Entitled; Standards for Fixing. All persons, except those charged with crimes punishable by death when the prosecutor presents proof that there is a likelihood of conviction and reasonable grounds to believe that the death penalty may be imposed, shall be bailable before conviction on such terms as, in the judgment of the court, will insure their presence in court when required, having regard for their background, residence, employment and family status and, particularly, the general policy against unnecessary sureties and detention. In its discretion the court may order the release of a person on his own recognizance and may impose terms or conditions appropriate to such release. (b) On Failure to Indict. If a person committed for a crime punishable by death shall not be indicted within 3 months after his commitment, a judge of the Superior Court or county court, for good cause shown, may admit him to bail. (c) On Failure to Move Indictment. If an indictment or accusation shall not be moved for trial within 6 months after arraignment, a judge of the Superior Court or county court, for cause shown, may discharge the defendant upon his own recognizance. (d) Extradition Proceedings. Where a person has been arrested in any extradition proceeding, he may be admitted to bail except where he is charged with a crime punishable by death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.