State v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Deck v. State (2002), Jon Keith Smith v. Michael Groose Missouri Attorney General (2000)
27 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 Strickland v. Washington · Duncan v. Missouri · State v. Jones · State v. Cline · Cheng v. Gaf Corporation
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, the interconnections between the prosecuting attorney’s office and the law firm handling [the defendant’s] related civil case create such suspicions and appearances of impropriety and show that members of the prosecuting attorney’s office had the potential access condemned in [prior case law]. As Klopfenstein and Mowry were employed by the prosecutor throughout the period this case was pending trial, their actions and the actions of their law firm disqualify the entire prosecuting attorney’s office.... [T]his Court will not require a showing of actual prejudice in a ease of this type. Prejudice is presumed, subject to rebuttal only upon a showing that the defendant waived the conflict and that steps were taken to insulate the actual prosecution from the conflict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reinschmidt“[W]here a lawyer represents the government after having served private clients, the situation is governed by Rule 1.11(c)(1) .... if the more extensive disqualification in Rule 1.10 were applied to former government lawyers, the potential effect on the government would be unduly burdensome. The government deals with all private citizens and organizations, and thus has a much wider circle of adverse legal interests than does any private law firm. In these circumstances, the government’s recruitment of lawyers would be seriously impaired if Rule 1.10 were applied to the government. On balance, therefore, the government is better served in the long run by the protections stated in Rule 1.11.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In every case — upon discovery by any party or counsel of the potential conflict of interest — that person shall disclose the conflict in open court in the presence of the defendant. Absent a waiver of the conflict of interest by the defendant, a special prosecutor shall be appointed. If the defendant has waived, or then chooses to waive, the conflict, the prosecuting attorney shall still show before the start of the trial that the individual attorney(s) with the potential conflict have been insulated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reinschmidt
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.