State v. Martini’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 district · 145 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Simmons v. South Carolina (1994), State v. White (1999)
2 district · 145 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Lockett v. Ohio · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Eddings v. Oklahoma · 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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“serves to paint a complete picture of the relevant criminal transaction,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“unless clear error and prejudice are shown.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[W]e hold that in the future when defense counsel or the jury requests instructions on the potential sentences a defendant will receive for convictions arising from the same trial as his capital-murder conviction, such information should be provided by the trial court. The jurors should be informed of the sentencing options available to the judge, and that the determination of sentence had not yet been made. In addition, the trial court should explain that the sentence may or may not run consecutively to that for murder, but that the determination is left to the court. Finally, the court should inform the jury that defendant's possible sentence for the other convictions should not influence its determination regarding the appropriateness of a death sentence on the murder count. Such instructions will assist in dispelling confusion on the part of the jury and will help to safeguard against improper sentencing determinations. [ Ibid. ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.