Ciervo v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2025
7 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 Murphy v. Florida · Marshall v. United States · McClain v. State · United States v. Williams · Juneby v. State
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.” Thus, in the current case, Judge Cutler acted properly in considering Perry’s testimony insofar as Perry indicated that she did not mention her conversation with Schmelzer to any other juror. Similarly, Judge Cutler properly considered the affidavits of other jurors confirming that Perry never mentioned the Schmel-zer conversation. Judge Cutler did not err in relying on this evidence as a basis for the objective conclusion that the effect of the Schmel-zer/Perry conversation was necessarily limited to Perry and had no influence on any other juror. This determination, however, is not dis-positive on the issue of whether a mistrial was called for in the present case, since, as we recognized in Ciervo , “In order for a defendant to receive a fair trial, the jurors must all be impartial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Swain v. State“The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice set forth the following standard for determining when motions for mistrial should be granted: On motion of the defendant, the verdict of guilty in any criminal case shall be set aside and a new trial granted whenever, on the basis of competent evidence, the court finds a substantial likelihood that the vote of one or more jurors was influenced by exposure to prejudicial matter relating to the defendant or to the case itself that was not part of the trial record on which the case was submitted. Nothing in this recommendation is intended to affect the rules or procedures in any jurisdiction concerning the impeachment of jury verdicts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Swain v. State
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.