State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably White v. Director of Revenue (2010), State v. Weaver (1995)
36 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 Davis v. Alaska · Alford v. United States · Smith v. Illinois · United States v. Campbell · United States v. De Gudino
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a witness is hostile, biased, or prejudiced against a party, the substance of his testimony may be affected by his other than impartial state of mind. In such an instance, that party should be afforded an opportunity to display before an uninformed jury the bias, hostility, or prejudices held by the witness against that party. Once informed, the jury can then, with greater accuracy, determine the appropriate weight to be given the whole of the witness’ testimony.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Foster · State v. Hedrick“`the interest or bias of a witness and his relation to or feeling toward a party are never irrelevant.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. Kardesch · State v. JLS“... If a witness is hostile, biased or prejudiced against a party, the substance of his testimony may be affected by his other than impartial state of mind ... In such an instance, that party should be afforded an opportunity to display before an uninformed jury the bias, hostility, or prejudices held by the witness against that party.... Under Missouri law, ‘the interest or bias of a witness and his relation to or feeling toward a party are never irrelevant matters ...’ State v. Edwards, 637 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.1982)_ Notwithstanding these established evidentiary principles, the authority of a party, and in particular a criminal defendant, to show the existence and extent of a witness’ bias, prejudice or hostility is subject to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Edwards, 637 S.W.2d at 30 . See also State v. Pigques, 310 S.W.2d 942 (Mo.1958); State v. McLachlan, 283 S.W. 2d 487 (Mo.1950).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Winkelmann
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.