State v. Apprendi’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he defendant in committing the crime acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the Legislature simply took one factor that has always been considered by sentencing courts to bear on punishment and dictated the weight to be given that factor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“seems to have occurred as late as 1798. It is now accepted in common law jurisdictions as the measure of persuasion by which the prosecution must convince the trier of all the essential elements of guilt.' C. McCormick, Evidence § 321, pp. 681-682 (1954); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2497 (3d ed. 1940).”
1 later decision 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.