State v. Loftin’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Marshall v. Hendricks (2002), State v. Harris (2004)
45 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 · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Woodson v. North Carolina · Jurek v. Texas
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“race valuables [were included] in the culpability models to ensure that variables for legitimate case characteristics were not carrying any possible race effects. It was in the course of this work that we observed the race effects____ Because discrimination was not the primary mandate in this project, we consider these results to be strictly preliminary. More work will be required to determine if they persist under closer scrutiny and alternative analyses, to determine, for example, whether they are statistical artifacts or flukes, and to assess them legal and practical significance. [David C. Baldus, Death Penalty Proportionality Review Project: Final Report to the New Jersey Supreme Court 100-01 (Sept. 24, 1991) (Baldus Report).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Proportionality review has a function entirely unique among the review proceedings in a capital proceeding. Proportionality review, in the context of a capital sentencing scheme, is not appellate review to ensure that the aggravating factors outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all the mitigating factors, L. 1985, c. 178, or to determine if the death sentence is disproportionate to the crime in violation of the ban against cruel and unusual punishment. That death is not disproportionate in the sense of being a cruel and unusual punishment is presumed by the nature of the review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Cooper“[u]pon the request of the defendant, the Supreme Court shall also determine whether the sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. Proportionality review under this section shall be limited to a comparison of similar cases in which a sentence of death has been imposed____ [N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3e.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. DiFrisco
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.