State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 district · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Dunn (2016), State v. Appleby (2009)
1 district · 93 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Jackson v. Denno · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · United States v. Young
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) . . . need to be proved only to the satisfaction of the individual juror in the juror's sentencing decision and not beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) mitigating circumstances do not need to be found by all members of the jury in order to be considered in an individual juror's sentencing decision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kansas v. Kansas · State v. Carr“‘We employ a two-step analysis in considering claims of prosecutorial misconduct: First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and deny him or her a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 77 , 183 P.3d 801 (2008).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Decker · State v. Brinklow“Read together, the instructions repeatedly emphasize the need for unanimity as to any aggravating circumstances found to exist. Conversely, the trial court's instructions do not inform the jury as to a contrary standard for determining mitigating circumstances. The jury is left to speculate as to the correct standard. Under these circumstances, we conclude there is a substantial probability reasonable jurors could have believed unanimity was required to find mitigating circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Carr · State v. Carr
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.