Burks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably McDuff v. State (1997), Ladd v. State (1999)
4 federal appellate · 106 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Chambers v. Mississippi · Wainwright v. Witt · Penry v. Lynaugh · Duren v. Missouri
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In regards to any potential claim of jeopardy which appellant might have to assert in a future prosecution, the proper time to argue this issue is after he has been charged or indicted for that unnamed future offense. As of now, that issue is far from ripe. It is not properly before this Court in the instant appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kutzner v. State · Johnson v. State“At the guilt/innocence phase of the trial the arresting officer testified that after listening to another detective question Yelena Comalander he began to suspect appellant in this offense, and that he then had an arrest warrant issue for appellant. The State argues that this testimony is not hearsay because it was not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, but to explain how the officer came to suspect appellant, seek an arrest warrant for him, and then arrest him. Because the statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show why the officer got an arrest warrant for and arrested appellant it was not objectionable as hearsay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCreary 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.