62 Wash. 2d 371 - State v. Cory’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Rosner (1973), 96 Wash. 2d 383 - State v. Hartzog (1981)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 21 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Sorrells v. United States · Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Alaska Industrial Board · Dipson Theatres, Inc. v. Buffalo Theatres, Inc.
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no way to isolate the prejudice resulting from an eavesdropping activity, such as this. If the prosecution gained information which aided it in the preparation of its case, that information would be as available in the second trial as in the first.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While our research and that of diligent counsel and amicus curiae have not disclosed a Washington case which speaks of the right of a defendant to confer with his counsel in private, it is universally accepted that effective representation cannot be had without such privacy. The cases are annotated in 23 A.L.R. 1382 and 54 A.L.R. 1225 , and numerous citations are listed in the supplements to these annotations. “It is also obvious that an attorney cannot make a ‘full and complete investigation of both the facts and the law’ unless he has the full and complete confidence of his client, and such conference cannot exist if the client cannot have the assurance that his disclosures to his counsel are strictly confidential. “In the case of Matter of Fusco v. Moses, 304 N.Y. 424 , 107 N.E.2d 581 , where an informer had ingratiated himself with other employees charged with neglect of duty and had attended their conferences with their attorney, the court held that the employees were deprived of their full right to be represented by counsel, and the determination of the administrative body hearing the charges against them was annulled, with the result that they were reinstated in their jobs.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The prosecution is not entitled to have a representative present to hear the conversations of accused and counsel. We consider it equally true that a defendant and his lawyer have a right to talk together by telephone without their conversations being monitored by the prosecution through a secret mechanical device which they do not know is being used.”
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.