Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 625 SW2D 138 - State v. Russell

State v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
6
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Harris (1994), State v. Gilmore (1984)

32 state decisions

1801981199020002010decided

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 Bruton v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas · Douglas v. Alabama

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “proof of the bias which could result from the juvenile witness’s motive to lie because he is a suspect and subject to control of the juvenile authorities. It does not hold that a state court must permit the general credibility of a juvenile to be attacked by a record of juvenile adjudication or unrestrained cross-examination concerning such adjudication or acts of misconduct.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The rehabilitative and protective purpose of the juvenile court system and public policy of this state providing confidentiality concerning juvenile offenses are factors which must be weighed in the necessity for permitting and the extent of cross-exami nation of juveniles. Such consideration will involve not only the factors relative to cross-examination of an adult, but will also involve elements particularly appropriate to a juvenile witness such as the circumstances of his misconduct, his subsequent conduct, and the age, understanding and background of the juvenile as they bear upon the probative value .of the act of misconduct to impeach the juvenile.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “and did establish by cross-examination that witness Hicks had been adjudicated as a juvenile because he had committed armed robbery and burglary; that he had been committed to a juvenile facility; that he had been placed on probation; that his probation was subject to revocation, and that as a witness against defendant, he necessarily admitted his own participation and guilt in the robbery for which defendant was convicted.”
    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.