Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 Ariz. 147 - State v. McGill

State v. McGill’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
9
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 108 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Roque (2006), United States v. Fields (2007)

4 federal appellate · 108 state decisions

550200620102020decided

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 United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Blakely v. Washington · Crawford v. Washington

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

  1. “¶ 64 Arizona’s sentencing scheme provides: At the penalty phase, the defendant and the state may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. In order for the trier of fact to make this determination, the state may present any evidence that demonstrates that the defendant should not be shown leniency.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “At the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding ... the prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances ... regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence at criminal trials.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “deference to a trial judge's determination of whether rebuttal evidence offered during the penalty phase is 'relevant' within the meaning of the statute,”
    2 later decisions 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.