State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018
8 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 Illinois v. Allen · Estelle v. Williams · American Petrofina Co. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Local No. 4-23 · Frey v. United States · Wolff v. McDonnell
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.” It necessarily follows from this that a criminal defendant is generally entitled to the “physical indicia of innocence.” This indicia of innocence most often refers to the right of a criminal defendant to be tried in front of a jury in the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kohl · State v. Jimenez“[a] principal ingredient of due process is that every criminal defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kohl · State v. Rohwedder“The prejudicial effect that flows from a defendant’s appearing before a jury in identifiable prison garb is not measurable, and is so potentially prejudicial as to create a substantial risk of fundamental unfairness in a criminal trial.... "The potential effects of presenting an accused before the jury in prison attire need not, however, be measured in the abstract. Courts have, with few exceptions, [footnote omitted] determined that an accused should not be compelled to go to trial in prison or jail clothing because of the possible impairment of the presumption so basic to the adversary system. ... This is a recognition that the constant reminder of the accused’s condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire may affect a juror’s judgment. The defendant’s clothing is so likely to be a continuing influence throughout the trial that, not unlike placing a jury in the custody of deputy sheriffs who were also witnesses for the prosecution, an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kohl
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.