Chapman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009 · most notably Rock v. Arkansas (1987), State v. Johnston (1988)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Frye v. United States · Monks v. New Jersey · State v. Hurd · LeDuc v. Florida · Martinez 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION # B "A witness who has been hypnotized does not automatically become incompetent as a witness because of the hypnosis. His testimony, if believed by the jury, may be sufficiently convincing to persuade the decision; even though not corroborated or supported by other evidence. "However, the jury should keep in mind that such testimony is always to be received with caution and weighed with great care. You should subject such testimony to careful examination in the light of all the other evidence in the case. You ought not to convict upon such testimony alone, unless after a careful examination of such testimony, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its reliability. "Careful consideration must be given to the manner of the hypnosis in order to ascertain the testimony's reliability. You must assure yourselves that hypnotically enhanced testimony does not reflect suggested pseudo memories or fantasies that are accepted as real by the witness and hypnotist alike." "DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION # H "One of the most important issues in this case is the identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. The State has the burden of proving identity, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not essential that the witness himself be free from doubt as to the correctness of his statement. However, you, the jury, must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accuracy of the identification of the Defendant before you convict him. If”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Prime v. State · State v. Collins“[a]n attack on credibility is the proper method to determine the value of the testimony of a previously hypnotized witness,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Zani v. State · Vester v. State“[t]he issue is properly one for the fact finderas are all issues relative to the credibility of the witness,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Zani v. State · Gee v. State
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.