State v. Tuttle’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably State v. Odom (1996), State v. Menzies (1994)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 41 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 Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Gregg v. Georgia · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Furman v. Georgia · Rock v. Arkansas
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The courts that have excluded admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony have done so on grounds that such testimony is unreliable. They have noted that the relevant scientific community does not accept forensic hypnosis as a dependable method of refreshing recollection. Or, they have reasoned that despite the lack of scientific acceptance, there is a great danger that jurors will give undue credence to such 'scientifically enhanced testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“aggravating circumstance is not applicable to the case. See id. at 1218 . 166 Archuleta does not deny that he was in a depraved mental state at the time he inflicted the tire fron assault and other injuries upon Church He only asserts that physical torture, serious physical abuse, or serious bodily injury of the victim must oceur before he loses consciousness, a showing that was not made at trial. 167 We now hold that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Archuleta v. Galetka“[t]he mere fact that one criminal episode may arguably violate several criminal statutes, thus giving the prosecutor discretion to choose which of the violations to prosecute, does not deny the accused equal protection of the laws under the federal constitution unless the prosecutor can be shown to have impermissibly discriminated against a particular class of defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Williams
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.