Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 778 S.W.2d 39 - State v. Cauthern

State v. Cauthern’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2013

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

1101989199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Witherspoon v. Illinois

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The police found the telephone line had been cut near its entry into the outside wall of the house. A shoe print was found on the back door that matched Patterson’s shoe. In a statement that he gave police he admitted kicking the back door once or twice, but said it would not open so they obtained a hammer and broke the pane of glass nearest the door knob to gain entry. The house was ransacked, chest of drawers open, luggage and clothing scattered about. In the master bedroom, the police found a piece of paper upon which was written defendant Cauthern’s name, address and telephone number. Rosemary Smith’s sister testified she was familiar with both her sister’s and her brother-in-law’s handwriting and the information about Cauthern was not written by either of them. The cumulative evidence [established] that defendant and the Smiths had been acquainted for approximately a year at the time of the murders, that he had performed some work on Patrick’s Mercedes and perhaps some additional work at their home, although he said in one of his statements that he had never been inside their home until the evening of 8 January 1987.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To fully honor an accused’s self-incrimination rights, the court stated that “[o]nce warnings have been given, ... [i]f the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At that point, he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]here was sufficient evidence of other factors in support of the jury’s verdict to give Cauthem the death penalty and Patterson life imprisonment that would enable this Court to find that the sentence of death was not imposed on Cauthern in any arbitrary fashion, or was excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases.”
    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.