73 Wash. 2d 67 - State v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 97 Wash. 2d 493 - State v. Grisby (1982), State v. Bourgeois (1997)
52 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 Jones v. Jones · State v. Devlin · 67 Wash. 2d 45 - State v. Suleski · 71 Wash. 2d 372 - State v. Green · 48 Wash. 2d 152 - State v. Dinges
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile it is presumed that juries follow the instructions of the court, an instruction to disregard evidence cannot logically be said to remove the prejudicial impression created where the evidence admitted into the trial is inherently prejudicial and of such a nature as to likely impress itself upon the minds of the jurors.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Far from being evidence which would show the commission of a crime, however, it is merely hearsay evidence that another crime was being planned or undertaken. Consequently it would not have been admissible even if offered for some purpose for which evidence of another crime would be properly admissible. But, although it was incompetent to prove the matter which it asserted, it cannot be supposed that the jury was unimpressed by it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We conclude that the testimony of the police officer, concerning an alleged plan to perpetrate a robbery like the one with the commission of which the defendants were charged, was so prejudicial in nature that its effect upon the minds of the jurors could not be expected to be erased by an instruction to disregard it. Therefore the defendants were denied a fair trial ...”
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.