Frey v. Fulcomer’s Empirical Analysis
132 F.3d 916 · 1997
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hughes (2004), Fredric Jermyn v. Martin Horn Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 Strickland v. Washington · Teague v. Lane · Lockett v. Ohio · Sandin v. Conner · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] petitioner's Mills claim alleging juror confusion as to unanimity must be examined under Boyde to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood (as opposed to merely a possibility) that jurors have applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All right, Members of the Jury, you must now decide whether the Defendant is to be sentenced to death or life im prisonment. The sentence will depend upon your findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Sentencing Code provides that the verdict must be a sentence of death if the Jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance. Or, if the Jury unanimously finds one or more aggravating circumstance which outweighs any mitigating circumstances. The verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment in all other cases. The Sentencing Code defines the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Now the Commonwealth has the burden of proving aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant has the burden of proving mitigating circumstances but only by a preponderance of the evidence, this is a lesser burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence exists where one side is more believable than the other side. All the evidence from both sides, including the evidence that you heard earlier during the trial in chief as to aggravating or mitigating circumstances is important and proper for you to consider. You should not decide out of any feeling of vengeance or prejudice towards the Defendant. As I previously told you, it is entirely up to the Defendant whether to testify and you must now draw any adverse inference from his silence. Now the verdict is for you, Members of the ”
2 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.