State v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 161 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Tison v. Arizona (1987), Cabana v. Bullock (1986)
2 federal appellate · 161 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Ohio v. Roberts · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Mullaney v. Wilbur
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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to comply with Enmund , therefore, we believe that in future cases where the jury might have found the defendant guilty of first degree murder based on a felony-murder theory, the trial judge must determine beyond a reasonable doubt prior to imposing a sentence of death that the defendant killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill. This determination, of course, must be in addition to those procedures specified in A.R.S. § 13-703.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. James · State v. Jordan“proof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whether or not a witness is “unavailable” within the rule depends on whether the state has made a good faith effort to secure the presence of the witness at trial. Ohio v. Roberts, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); State v. Ray, 123 Ariz. 171 , 598 P.2d 990 (1979). “Good faith” is not subject to a precise definition and whether such effort has been made is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge to be determined on a case by case basis. State v. Owens, 103 Ariz. 541 , 447 P.2d 233 (1968).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Elisondo
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.