Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 WASH2D 17 - State v. Grier

State v. Grier’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1153

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Beck v. Alabama · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega · Keeble v. United States

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'below an objective standard of reasonableness.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “True, if the prosecution has not established beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged, and if no lesser offense instruction is offered, the jury must, as a theoretical matter, return a verdict of acquittal. But a defendant is entitled to a lesser offense instruction — in this context or any other— precisely because he should not be exposed to the substantial risk that the jury’s practice will diverge from theory. Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve its doubts in favor of conviction. In the case before us, for example, an intent to commit serious bodily injury is a necessary element of the crime with which petitioner was charged, but not of the crime of simple assault. Since the nature of petitioner’s intent was very much in dispute at trial, the jury could rationally have convicted him of simple assault if that option had been presented. But the jury was presented with only two options: convicting the defendant of assault with intent to commit great bodily injury, or acquitting him outright. We cannot say that the availability of a third option — convicting the defendant of simple assault — could not have resulted in a different verdict.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.