Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Simmons v. South Carolina (1994), King v. State (1997)
2 federal appellate · 113 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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Wainwright v. Witt · Sedillo v. United States · Penry v. Lynaugh · Adams v. Texas
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court need never sort through challenged evidence in order to segregate the admissible from the excludable, nor is the trial court required to admit only the former part or exclude only the latter part. If evidence is offered and challenged which contains some of each, the trial court may safely admit it all or exclude it all, and the losing party, no matter who he is, will be made to suffer on appeal the consequences of his insufficiently specific offer or objection.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Willover v. State · In re M.P.“(1) the declarant is unavailable as a witness; (2) testimony was given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding; and (3) the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Coffin v. State · Dennis v. State“The photographs are gruesome. That is to say, they are disagreeable to look at, but they depict nothing more than the reality of the brutal crime committed. The photographs are powerful visual evidence, probative of various aspects of the State’s theory of the offense including the brutality and heinousness of the offense. Appellant must realize that it is precisely the quality which we describe as “powerful” which gives rise to his arguments that the photographs are prejudicially inflammatory. But when the power of the visible evidence emanates from nothing more than what the defendant has himself done we cannot hold that the trial court has abused its discretion merely because it admitted the evidence. A trial court does not err merely because it admits into evidence photographs which are gruesome, [citations omitted] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video recording or photographs of which appellant complains.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kendrick v. State
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.