State v. Barrows’s Empirical Analysis
1884
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1967
2 federal appellate · 5 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 Linsday v. . People of the State of N.Y. · Commonwealth v. Brown
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The reason at first given for not allowing a party to testify was his interest. The old common law shuddered at the idea of any person testifying who had the least interest. But that, reason failed sometimes. In many civil cases a, party had no interest. Then it was decided that public policy or expediency prevented the reception of the testimony. A party to the record was, not permitted to testify, whether interested or not. If only a nominal plaintiff, ho could not testify, either for the plaintiff or defendant. Kennedy v. Stiles, 14 Me. 54 . Without much reasoning upon the subject, the law pronounced against it. The rule was general. But, as stringent as the rule was, it did not apply to indictments to its full extent. The parallel between civil and criminal cases was not kept up. If a man was indicted, and pleaded guilty, he could testify for his co-defendant. State v. Jones, 51 Me. 125 . If, however, he was sued for the same cause, and became defaulted, he could not testify for his co-defendant. Gilmore v. Bowden, 12 Me. 412 . Courts seem inclined not to regard a. co-defendant in a criminal case as a party, unless ‘a party to the issue on trial.’ That distinction is taken In the English cases before cited. To be incompetent to testify, the defendants must be in charge of the same jury. Mr. Starkie struck the same key, who deqlarod that ‘an indictment against several is several as to each.’ 2 Starkie, Ev. 11. It is plainly seen that there is much authority and reason for”
2 later decisions 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.