State v. Van Winkle’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 953 So. 2d 890 - State v. Lathan (2007), 898 So. 2d 1219 - State v. Higgins (2005)
77 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 Chapman v. State of California · Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · Green v. United States · State v. Edwards
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“_JjjjA criminal defendant has the constitutional right to present a defense. U.S. Const. Amend. VI; La. Const. Art. 1, § 16; Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Gremillion, 542 So.2d 1074 (La.1989); State v. Vigee, 518 So.2d 501 (La.1988). Due process affords a defendant the right of full confrontation and cross examination of the State’s witnesses. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La.1992). It is difficult to imagine rights more inextricably linked to our concept of a fair trial. Evidentiary rules may not supersede the fundamental right to present a defense. State v. Sartain, 08-266, p. 16 (La.App. 4 cir. 12/30/08), 2 So.3d 1132, 1141 .”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage““Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. LSA-C.E. art. 403 provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the making of the confession or statement for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine the weight to be given to the confession or statement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holmes · State v. Whitton
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.