Poole v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably California v. Ramos (1983), 37 Cal. 3d 136 - People v. Ramos (1984)
126 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 Bruton v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Dunn v. United States · Dorsey v. State · Williams v. United States
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his type of argument is likely to allow the jury to disregard its duty to determine aggravating and mitigating factors, and to then balance one against the other as required by [the state statute] . . . . Any consideration of the possibility of parole as such simply is irrelevant . . . .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. State · Evans v. State“[A]ttention should not be focused on a particular portion lifted out of context, but rather its adequacy is determined by viewing it as a whole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conyers v. State · Bowers v. State““[T]he lead count is assault with intent to murder, and others are related counts. This is what we call a multiple count indictment. There are five counts you will be deliberating about and you’re to consider each one of these counts separate and distinct from the others. In other words, you make up your mind on one count, then forget about what your judgment was and move on to the next count. So that you’re not being influenced by your own decision. You’re giving consideration on each separate count as if you were deciding that count alone. [Wjhere you find there has been a commission of a crime of violence, assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to maim are crimes of violence, in fact. “Assault and battery does not fall within that definition, so your first two counts, assault with intent to murder, assault with intent to maim are crimes of violence. Assault and battery is not considered a crime of violence. “Now, did the defendant use a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence? Because the mere use of a handgun where there are one of those violence crimes is in and of itself a separate and distinct crime.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MacK v. State
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.