State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably 53 Ill. 2d 62 - People v. Prim (1972), 19 Cal. 3d 835 - People v. Gainer (1977)
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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 State v. Voeckell · State v. Lubetkin · State v. Craft
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When and wherever its use is called into question it must stand or fall upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. It has given, and we believe each use will give us, harassment and distress in the administration of justice. No rule of thumb can circumscribe definite bounds of when and where, or under what circumstances it should be given or refused. ****** “We are convinced that the evils far outweigh the benefits, and decree that its use shall no longer be tolerated and approved by this court.” State v. Thomas, 86 Ariz. 161 , 342 P.2d 197 , 200 (1959).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ * * * on the other hand, if a larger number of your panel are for conviction a dissenting juror should consider whether a doubt in his own mind is a reasonable one which makes no impression on the minds of so many jurors equally honest, equally intelligent with himself, who have heard the same evidence, with the same oath; and if on the other hand, the majority are for the defendant the minority should ask themselves whether they may not and ought to reasonably doubt seriously the correctness of a judgment which is not concurred in by most of those with whom they are associated, and distrust the weight and sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction to the minds of their fellow jurors’ *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[4] In order to bring eight minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor and frankness and with proper deference to and regard for the opinions of each other. That is to say in conferring together, each of you should pay due attention and respect to the views of the others, and listen to each other's arguments with the disposition to re-examine your own views.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harry
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.