Stevenson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably MacK v. State (1984), Calhoun v. State (1983)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 128 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio · Jackson v. Denno
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Owens v. State · Calhoun v. State“"[I]t is incumbent upon a trial judge to carefully delineate for the jury the following dichotomy: (i) that the jury, under Article 23, is the final arbiter of disputes as to the substantive 'law of the crime,’ as well as the 'legal effect of the evidence,’ and that any comments by the judge concerning these matters are advisory only; and (ii) that, by virtue of this same constitutional provision, all other aspects of law (e.g., the burden of proof, the requirement of unanimity, the validity of a statute) are beyond the jury’s pale, and that the judge’s comments on these matters are binding upon that body. In other words, the jury should not be informed that all of the court’s instructions are merely advisory; rather only that portion of the charge addressed to the former areas of 'law’ may be regarded as non-binding by it, and it is only these aspects of the 'law’ which counsel may dispute in their respective arguments to the jury. On the other hand, the jury should be informed that the judge’s charge with regard to any other legal matter is binding and may not be disregarded by it.” Id. at 180 , 423 A.2d at 565 (footnote omitted).”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"is limited to deciding `the law of the crime,' Wheeler v. The State, 42 Md. 563, 570 (1875), or the `definition of the crime,' as well as `the legal effect of the evidence before [the jury],' Beard v. State, 71 Md. 275, 280 , 17 A. 1044, 1045 (1889)." (Emphasis added). [7]”
5 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.