Wortham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
July 1987
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Harris v. New York · Cooksey v. State · State v. Glass · Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence illegally obtained shall not be used over proper objection by the defendant in a criminal prosecution for any purpose except: (1) a statement illegally obtained in violation of the right to warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ] (1966), may be used in a prosecution for perjury if the statement is relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence and if the prosecution shows that the statement was otherwise voluntary and not coerced; and (2) other evidence illegally obtained may be admitted in a prosecution for perjury if it is relevant to [sic] issue of guilty or innocence and if the prosecution shows that the evidence was not obtained in substantial violation of rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Esmailka v. State“On September 25, 1978, Wortham met Ms. Gail J. Reas (an undercover police officer) and a police informant at the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant on Tudor Road in Anchorage, Alaska. The purpose of the meeting was to enable Reas to purchase cocaine from Wortham. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Reas equipped herself with an electronic transmitter. Police Officer Charles M. Adams, Jr. equipped himself with an electronic monitoring and recording system in an unmarked police vehicle. The conversation surrounding the transaction was electronically monitored and recorded by Officer Adams. The electronic monitoring and recording took place without the benefit of a search warrant or any other court order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wortham 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.