Webb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Bell v. State (1996), Davis v. State (1994)
34 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 Washington v. Texas · Patterson v. United States · Holder v. United States · Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) if the rule was violated and the witness disqualified, were there particular circumstances, other than the mere fact of the violation, which would tend to show the defendant or his counsel consented, procured or otherwise had knowledge of the witness’s presence in the courtroom, together with knowledge of the content of that witness’s testimony; and (2) if no particular circumstances existed to justify disqualification, was the excluded testimony crucial to the defense.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Davis v. State · Routier v. State“Where the “particular and extraordinary circumstances” show neither the defendant nor his counsel have consented, procured, connived or have knowledge of a witness or potential witness who is in violation of the sequestration rule, and the testimony of the witness is crucial to the defense, it is an-abuse of discretion exercised by the trial court to disqualify the witness.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Davis v. State · Tell v. State“That the jury might still have returned a guilty verdict is beside the point; judgment of the credibility of witnesses is for the trier of fact. The trial court arbitrarily excluded (the witness) upon no other basis than that he violated the rule. Such discretion cannot be permitted when it denies a defendant a fundamental constitutional right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chavez 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.