723 So. 2d 810 - Baxter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2016
6 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 · Griffin v. California · United States v. Hasting · United States v. Robinson · Anderson v. Nelson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although direct comments on a defendant's failure to testify can amount to reversible error, whether they do must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and, under certain circumstances, the comment may be curable or may be harmless. In deciding whether such an improper remark constitutes harmless error, courts have looked at certain factors. The Tennessee Supreme Court listed the following five factors to consider in making this determination: "`1. The conduct complained of viewed in the context of the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. "`2. The curative measures taken by the court and the prosecution. "`3. The intent of the prosecutor making the improper statement. "`4. The cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record. "`5. The relative strength or weakness of the case. "` Judge [v. State ], 539 S.W.2d [340], 344 [(Tenn.Crim.App. 1976), approved in State v. Buck , 670 S.W.2d 600 , 609 (Tenn. 1984).] The court should also consider whether the remarks were lengthy and repeated or whether they were single and isolated. Id . Moreover, courts must remain cognizant of the fact that remarks require reversal only when the remarks "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the subsequent conviction a denial of due process." In addition to these factors consideration should be given to the principal that a prompt instruction by the trial judge generally cures any error, since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial judge'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duncan v. State“`The U.S. Supreme Court ... has declined to give Griffin an absolutist reading and has rejected the argument that all”
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.