State v. Neff’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Strong (2004), State v. Barnum (2000)
37 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 United States v. Robinson · State v. Tiedt · State v. Hutchinson · State v. Lawhorn · State v. Shuls
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A direct reference to an accused's failure to testify is made when the prosecutor uses words such as `defendant,' `accused' and `testify' or their equivalent. An indirect reference is one reasonably apt to direct the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An indirect reference is one reasonably apt to direct the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Q. Okay. So the thing that Mr. Ga-bel is trying to do here is trying to basically confuse the jury and twist it around. It’s not what you said. THE DEFENDANT: He’s lying. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. McGowan, did you want to take the stand? MR. GABEL: Your Honor, can we approach? (Counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings were had.) MR. GABEL: Your Honor, I’m asking for a mistrial with the Prosecutor’s direct reference to my client’s refusal to testimony. With prejudice. MR. WRIGHT: It would not be with prejudice. We’ll do it again. THE COURT: The request for mistrial is denied. I’m going to let it pass at this point without mentioning it to the jury and telling them to disregard it. MR. GABEL: I’d rather it not be highlighted to the jury. THE COURT: I don’t intend to highlight it but the request for mistrial is denied. Mr. Wright, let’s not do that. MR. WRIGHT: I understand. This is the second time today Mr. McGowan has spoken up in the middle of trial. If he needs to speak in this trial then he needs to take the stand. It’s not appropriate for him to make comments, questions, answers or anything else from the seat over here. That is inappiopriate. There’s nothing I can do about it if he’s going to make comments or statement. THE COURT: Well, there’s nothing I can do about it, either. MR. WRIGHT: I understand, but that’s the second time today he’s made comments, questions from his seat and that’s inappropriate. THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. Mr. Gabel, I think you n”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McGowan
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.