State v. Ingenito’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 99 Wash. 2d 413 - State v. Vladovic (1983), State v. Bey (1988)
6 federal appellate · 154 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Morissette v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Estelle v. Williams
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he responsibility of the jury in [determining]... guilt or innocence, is so pronounced and preeminent that we accept inconsistent verdicts that accrue to the benefit of a defendant. Indeed, a jury has the prerogative of returning a verdict of innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. It may also refuse to return a verdict in spite of the adequacy of the evidence. This is indicative of a belief that the jury in a criminal prosecution serves as the conscience of the community and the embodiment of the common sense and feelings reflective of society as a whole. [ Id. at 211-12 , 432 A. 2d 912 (citations omitted).]”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f an essential element of a case is presented as concluded or settled, effectively withholding from the jury crucial underlying facts, the jury’s capacity to discharge fully its paramount deliberative and decisional responsibilities is irretrievably compromised. It follows in such circumstances that the defendant’s jury right will have been, commensurately, abridged.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ragland · State v. Purnell“the nondelegable and nonremovable responsibility of the jury to decide”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.