Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 715 SO2D 118 - State v. Adams

State v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2012

15 state decisions

80199820002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Davis v. Alaska · 603 So. 2d 731 - State v. Hearold · 661 So. 2d 442 - State v. Smith · State v. Robertson

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[B]ut out of abundant caution [the trial court] removed Ms. Benton from the jury. The defense moved for mistrial, which the court denied, giving the defense instead several options for filling Ms. Benton's place. The defense agreed to let one alternate juror take her place, but reserved an objection. Adams now contends that he suffered from "general prejudice," that the contact between Mrs. Chisley and Ms. Benton "possibly" tainted the entire jury, and that allowing the alternate to serve undermined his strategic use of peremptory challenges. Despite defense counsel's argument to the District Court and to this court that Mrs. Chisley related certain facts of the case to Ms. Benton, this was not substantiated by either conversant. It was also not corroborated by the defendant's mother. The talk appears to have been limited to why the two ladies—who both work for the school board—were present in the court house. This is not the extremely prejudicial contact shown in State v. Charles, supra, or in State v. Cantu, 469 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985). Rather, it was innocuous and did not affect the trial at all. See, State v. Ross, 95 1240 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/96) , 674 So.2d 489 ; State v. Hawkins, 496 So.2d 643 (La.App. 1 Cir.1986), writ denied 500 So.2d 420 (1987).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.