78 Wis. 2d 435 - Rudolph v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably State v. Murphy (1978), State v. Knapp (2005)
39 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Doyle v. Ohio · 53 Wis. 2d 218 - Bautista 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fact that the defendant’s trial counsel did not request any additional instructions or specifically base his motion for a new trial on the error now asserted is an indication that at the time of trial this error was viewed as being far less egregious than now. While we recognize the issue involved here is one of constitutional dimensions so that the usual waiver rules are not applicable, see State v. Johnson, supra, at p. 343, we merely point out these deficiencies in the record as being- indicative of the fact that trial counsel was apparently satisfied with the trial court’s action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under the circumstances of the instant case, we have no doubt that it was error to present testimony of the defendant’s election to remain silent at the time of his postarrest custodial interrogation. This error is not based on the due process considerations of Doyle, but rather on the guarantee against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth, which proscribes the prosecution’s use of the defendant’s silence in its case in chief. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained . . . and the court must be able to declare a belief that [the constitutional error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.