Mayfield v. Woodford’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.3d 915 · 2001
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Williams v. Woodford (2002), Davis v. Woodford (2003)
58 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Faretta v. California
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To perform effectively in the penalty phase of a capital case, counsel must conduct sufficient investigation and engage in sufficient preparation to be able to `present[ ] and explain[] the significance of all the available [mitigating] evidence.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“reasonable probability that the omitted evidence would have changed the conclusion that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and, hence, the sentence imposed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no death penalty cases tried in San Bernar-dino County prior to 1983 where a drug defense had been successful in gaining either an acquittal or in reducing the sentence from death to life without parole.”). The sentencing judge likely would have taken note of the fact that Correll never sought treatment for his substance abuse problem and repeatedly secured his removal from the mental health programs in which he was placed either by escaping or by violently assaulting the staff. . While the majority quotes Reverend Curry's testimony that he”
2 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.