85 Wis. 2d 620 - Lhost v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably 96 Wis. 2d 549 - Pickens v. State (1980), State v. DeFreitas (1980)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · In re Oliver · Webb 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One of the most cogent studies was done by Dr. Martin Orne in his article, ‘Implications of Laboratory Research for the Detection of Deception,’ 2 Polygraph 169 (1973). In addressing the problems to the accuracy of lie detector results when a stipulation is required for admissibility and the test is taken prior to stipulation at the behest of defense counsel, he makes the following points: “ ‘Whereas the usual polygraph examination is carried out in a situation where the polygrapher is at arm’s length — in the employ of a law enforcement agency, a potential (or actual) employer or in some similar relationship, where his decision would inevitably have a direct effect on a suspect’s future — the context in which the friendly polygrapher carries out his test is inevitably different. In the latter case the suspect realizes that his attorney has employed the polygraph examiner to help in the preparation of his defense. For the innocent person this may matter relatively little; however, for the guilty individual it alters the situation considerably. The guilty individual when tested by a friendly polygrapher knows that the results of the test if he is found deceptive will not be used against him. The only kind of findings which his attorney would utilize are ones where his innocence is being corroborated by the polygraph. As a consequence, the client’s fears about being detected are greatly reduced. As we have been able to show in the laboratory, and as is acknowledged by all poly”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“either that her utmost resistance is overcome or prevented by physical violence or that her will to resist is overcome by threats of imminent physical violence likely to cause great bodily harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Grimm“(t)he Wisconsin stipulation rule pronounced in Stanislawski is designed to assure the fairness and reliability in the introduction of polygraph results in evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMorris v. Israel
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.