Crane v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2006
2 federal appellate · 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 · California v. Trombetta · Crane v. Kentucky · Commonwealth v. McIntosh · Crane v. Commonwealth
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In view of the incriminatory testimony of appellant’s uncle and mother, it is inconceivable to us that the jury would have reached any other result in this case had they had the additional testimony concerning the exact length of time appellant was questioned; the exact size of the office where the questioning took place; that none of his family was present, although efforts were made to secure their presence; that appellant was provided with soft drinks, etc. was questioned in a conversational tone; and treated well by the officers. It is our view that beyond a reasonable doubt there is no reasonable possibility the verdict of the jury would have been different had the erroneous exclusion of evidence not occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question here is not whether the jury reached the right result regardless of the error, but whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have affected the jury’s decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.