Chambliss v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Stults v. State (2000), Ocon v. State (2009)
44 state decisions
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 Massiah v. United States · Harris v. New York · Romo v. State · May v. State · Autry 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... No person shall be permitted to converse with a juror about the case on trial except in the presence and by the permission of the court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Glover v. State · Kingsley v. State““Until 1977, Article 38.22 applied to confessions made while ‘the defendant was in jail or other place of confinement or in the custody of an officer ...’ Article 38.22, V.A.C.C.P. (Vernon 1966). As can be seen, this language omits any requirement that the statement stem from ‘interrogation.’ By contrast, after Article 38.22 was amended in 1977, the old language was changed so that ‘custody’ itself would not invoke the protections of the statute: Section 3(a) spoke of an ‘oral statement of an accused made as a result of custodial interrogation,’ and Section 5 created new exceptions for a statement that did not ‘stem from custodial interrogation ’ or a ‘voluntary statement, whether the result of custodial interrogation or not,’ that had a ‘bearing upon the credibility of the accused as a witness.’ ” (Footnote omitted) (Emphasis in original)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zimmerman v. State“Appellant’s third ground of error asserts that the prosecutor should have been disqualified for not bringing Richards’ conversation to the attention of the trial court. We think he should have notified the court rather than determine sua sponte that no misconduct occurred. The record does reveal, however, that he advised Mrs. Leak not to have any further contact with Richards. We do not see prosecutorial misconduct calling for a new trial, but express no opinion as to a possible violation of Disciplinary Rule 7-108(G) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mize 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.