Jones v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
171 F.3d 270 · 1999
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably United States v. General (2002), Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (2000)
17 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Wong Sun v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson · Townsend v. Sain
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.
“Further, in light of the jury instructions, such claim must fail. As stated in Jones v. Johnson, the jury had the opportunity to distinguish between knowing and intentional conduct during the sentencing. The first punishment phase issue required the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with reasonable expectation that death would result. The judge defined “deliberate” as “something more than intentional” and as a “conscious decision [embracing] more than a will to engage in conduct.” Any suggestion that the jury rationally could have found Jones guilty of killing knowingly but not intentionally is foreclosed by the affirmative response to the greater mental element during the sentencing phase.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The law is well-established, however, that such error committed in a post-conviction application, where there is no constitutional right to counsel, cannot constitute cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martinez v. Johnson
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.