Bartholomey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
8 district · 148 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon (1973), Tichnell v. State (1980)
8 district · 148 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Brady v. State of Maryland · North Carolina v. Pearce · Furman v. Georgia · Williams v. People of State of New York · Moore v. Illinois
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o aid the sentencing judge in fairly and intelligently exercising the discretion vested in him, the procedural policy of the State encourages him to consider information concerning the convicted person’s reputation, past offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, social background and any other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We entertain not the slightest doubt that the imposition of the death sentence under any of the presently existing discretionary statutes of Maryland which authorize, but do not require, that penalty is unconstitutional under Furman as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, [footnote omitted]. In other words, we think the net result .of the holding in Furman is that the death penalty is unconstitutional when its imposition is not mandatory.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tichnell v. State · State v. Rhodes““Any information which might influence the judgment of the sentencing judge, not received from the defendant himself, or given in his presence, should (without necessarily disclosing its source) be called to the defendant’s attention so as to afford him an opportunity to refute or discredit it.” (Citations omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.