State v. Moriwake’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Briones v. State (1993), State v. Rogan (1999)
4 federal appellate · 127 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Wade v. Hunter
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the severity of the offense charged; (2) the number of prior mistrials and the circumstances of the jury deliberation therein, so far as is known; (3) the character of prior trials in terms of length, complexity and similarity of evidence presented; (4) the likelihood of any substantial difference in a subsequent trial, if allowed; (5) the trial court’s own evaluation of relative case strength; and (6) the professional conduct and diligence of respective counsel, particularly that of the prosecuting attorney.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Deguair. · State v. Sasai.“are unwarranted. In Moriwake, the Hawaii Supreme Court stated: [W]e are cognizant of the deference to be accorded the prosecuting attorney with regard to criminal proceedings, but such deference is not without bounds. As stated elsewhere: Society has a strong interest in punishing criminal conduct. But society also has an interest in protecting the integrity of the judicial process and in ensuring fairness to defendants in judicial proceedings. Where those fundamental interests are threatened, the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Correa. · State v. Hinton“[T]rial judges have the inherent authority to terminate a prosecution in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, where ... repeated trials, free of prejudicial error, have resulted in genuinely deadlocked juries and where it appears that at future trials substantially the same evidence will be presented and that the probability of continued hung juries is great.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Kyles · Sivels 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.