Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Pellegrini v. State (2001), Valerio v. Crawford (2002)
2 federal appellate · 29 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 Chapman v. State of California · Gregg v. Georgia · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Woodson v. North Carolina · California v. Ramos
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a capital case where the record is sufficiently developed to provide an adequate basis for review and to demonstrate that fundamental rights are implicated, it is appropriate to hear a constitutional question for the first time on appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“1. Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole is a sentence to life imprisonment which provides that the Defendant would be eligible for parole after a period of twenty years. This does not mean that he would be paroled after twenty years, but only that he would be eligible after that period of time. 2. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole means exactly what it says, that the Defendant shall not be eligible for parole. 3. If you sentence the Defendant to death you must assume that the sentence will be carried out. 4. Although under some limited circumstances and conditions the State Board of Pardons Commissioners has the power to modify certain sentences, the law does not allow the Board to change either a death sentence or a sentence of life without the possibility of parole to any lesser or different sentence. Therefore, you are instructed that you may not speculate as to whether the sentence you impose may be changed at a later date.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Geary v. State“It is well established in Nevada that evidence of prior convictions is admissible at penalty hearings when relevant and credible and not dubious or tenuous. See Biondi v. State, 101 Nev. 252 , 699 P.2d 1062 (1985); Allen v. State, 99 Nev. 485, 488 , 665 P.2d 238 (1983). See also NRS 175.552. Although details of prior crimes undoubtably have a greater impact on a jury than a bare record conviction, their admission may aid the trier in assessing the character of a defendant. A defendant’s character and his record are “relevant factors to be considered by a jury in imposing a penalty for a capital crime. . . .” Allen, 99 Nev. at 488 . See also Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Emil 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.