Saiz v. Burnett’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.3d 1008 · 2002
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Penry v. Johnson · Alvie James Hale v. Gary Gibson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On November, 9, 1990, [Saiz] shot her husband, George Saiz, four times in the back of the head while he slept. After-wards, to simulate a burglary, she collected valuable items from their home and stored them at her mother’s home and at .the home of a man with whom she was having an affair. [Saiz] initially told police she had returned home to find her husband dead and the home burglarized. After repeated police interviews, [Saiz] admitted she shot and killed her husband but claimed she acted in self defense. [Saiz] asserted George Saiz had physically abused her over the course of their four-year marriage and, on the day of the homicide, had threatened to kill her. A Colorado grand jury indicted [Saiz] on one count of first-degree murder. [Saiz] initially pled not guilty by reason of insanity and asserted a defense of impaired mental condition. The court ordered a pretrial examination pursuant to Colorado statute, and appointed Dr. Kathy Morall to examine [Saiz], Dr. Mo-rall issued two psychiatric reports, concluding in both that [Saiz] was legally sane when she shot and killed her husband. After a sanity trial, at which Dr. Morall and several defense experts testified, a jury determined [Saiz] was legally sane at the time of the shooting. At her trial on the substantive charges, [Saiz] withdrew the impaired mental condition defense and argued she acted in self defense. The defense presented several medical and psychological expert witnesses, each of whom testified [Saiz] was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saiz v. Ortiz“district court concluded that the Colorado appellate court's application of Chapman was incorrect,” rather than”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saiz v. Ortiz“'[h]armless error is a mixed question of law and fact.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saiz v. Ortiz
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.