State v. Grell’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ring v. Arizona · Atkins v. Virginia · Trop v. Dulles · Ford v. Wainwright · State v. Hoskins
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.
“[Section 13-753 4 5 ] involves several steps in which experts examine a capital defendant “using current community, nationally and culturally accepted physical, developmental, psychological and intelligence testing procedures, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has mental retardation.” The experts submit reports and the trial court holds a hearing at which the defendant bears the burden of proving mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. A finding by the trial court of mental retardation prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We recognize that the procedures set forth in section 13-703.02 are not applicable in Grell’s case, as section 13-703.02 did not take effect until after Grell’s sentencing. Moreover, the procedures contemplated by section 13703.02 are pre-trial procedures, triggered when the State files its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The trial court should use Atkins as a guide and should, insofar as is practical in the post-trial posture of this case, follow the procedures established in [Ariz.Rev.Stat.] section 13-703.02.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Ryan“clinical definitions of mental retardation require not only subaverage intellectual functioning, but also significant limitations in adaptive skills such as communication, self-care, and self-direction that became manifest before age 18.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Canez
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.