State v. Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably State v. Crump (1971), State v. Maes (1970)
73 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1201
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Griffin v. California · Hoffa v. United States · United States v. Jackson
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We concede an accused may hesitate to take the witness stand if his past criminal record is such that his credibility will probably be completely destroyed in the eyes of the jury if this record is made known to the jury. However, this in no way impairs his right against self-incrimination, his right not to be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor his right to a public trial by an impartial jury. “When an accused takes the witness stand he is in the same position as any other witness.. Section 20-2-3, supra. He is not entitled to have his testimony falsely cloaked with reliability by having his credibility protected against the truth-searching process of cross-examination. * * *»”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Trejo · State v. Duran“* * * [M]ere possession of recently stolen property is not sufficient in and of itself to warrant the conviction of a defendant on a charge of having stolen property in his possession, but that such possession, if not satisfactorily explained, is a circumstance to be taken into consideration with all of the other facts and circumstances in the case in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. * * * [Emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Elam
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.