State v. Wiley’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably State v. McCall (1983), State v. Murray (1995)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 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 Anders v. California · Terry v. Ohio · Glasser v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rather, we will continue to adhere to the Swain rationale that a defendant is not entitled to a new trial unless he is able to show systematic exclusion of an identifiable group.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Dogan · State v. Holder“In order to find the defendants guilty of first degree murder, you must find that the death was proximately caused by the acts of the defendants. The proximate cause of a death is a cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the death, and without which the death would not have occurred. Proximate cause does not exist if the chain of natural effects and cause either does not exist or is broken by intervening events which were unforeseeable by the defendants. Conduct is the cause of a result when both of the following exist: (1) But for the conduct, the result in question would not have occurred. (2) The relationship between the conduct and results satisfies any additional causal requirement imposed by the statute defining the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Smith“If you were selected in this case, you will be instructed that you should not discuss or even consider the possible penalty or sentence that may be imposed in determining whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the Defendant was found to be guilty of murder in the first degree by the jury, then the Court — that’s the judge — may impose either life imprisonment or the death penalty as a sentence. Those two options, if you will. Under Arizona law the jury does not determine the sentence. The sentence — what the sentence ought to be for any offense, including murder first degree, is entirely a function of the judge, the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hyde
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.