Goodman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2010
18 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 Cherb v. State · Banks v. State · Wall v. State · Zanders v. State · Wood 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A party may, when testimony of his own witness is injurious to his cause, attack the testimony in any other manner except by offering evidence of the witness’ bad character.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. State · Sweeney v. State“1) Before an attorney or party is allowed to impeach his own witness, he must establish the proper predicate by showing not only that the witness’s testimony has surprised the party, but also that it is injurious to his cause. 2) Since the issue of surprise is to be determined by the court and not the jury, the attorney should request the court to conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury. 3) A mere claim of surprise or statement to the court to that effect is insufficient to allow impeachment; surprise must be demonstrated. 4) The attorney attempting to impeach his own witness may testify as to surprise and call other witnesses to demonstrate the same. In order to demonstrate surprise the party must show prior conversations with statements by the witness, outside the presence of the jury. 5) Foreknowledge of the witness’s testimony precludes impeachment even though such testimony is decidedly adverse on a vital issue. 6) If the witness admits he made a contrary statement but states he made it by mistake, and prior to trial informs the calling party of such fact, surprise is not shown and the statement should not be used to impeach him. 7) The purpose of the rule requiring a showing of surprise is to prevent a party from calling a witness whom the party knows in advance will testify adversely and then, under the guise of impeachment, present before the jury the testimony which the party would have hoped to elicit from the adverse witness. 8) Once the party demonstrat”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paez 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.