Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 301 Ark. 244 - Pickens v. State

Pickens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Nooner v. State (1995), Cain v. South Carolina (1990)

49 state decisions

5101990200020102020decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Lockhart v. McCree · Ross v. Oklahoma · Mills v. Maryland

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Our Form 2, which accompanies AMCI 1509, expressly allows the jury to list mitigating circumstances which were found by some, though not all, of its members. Form 3 then allows the jury to determine if the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Nothing in the forms indicates to the jury that a mitigating circumstance must be found unanimously before it may be considered in the weighing process. The potential for misunderstanding is not present in the Arkansas forms as it is in the Maryland forms.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “and finally said she could vote for the death penalty”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Third, Pickens presented the testimony of Father Louis Franz who spoke of the good works and self-improvement Pick-ens had undertaken while in prison. On cross-examination, the state asked Father Franz if he had once intervened in a case to prevent the death penalty from being carried out, even though it was against the wishes of the convicted man. The state was referring to Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181 , 754 S.W.2d 839 (1988) in which Father Franz, as next friend, tried to appeal the death sentence of Ronald Gene Simmons after Simmons waived his appeal. Pickens objected to this reference to the Simmons case, but the trial court allowed the question. The state was attempting to show that Father Franz was so unalterably opposed to the death penalty that he would go to great extremes to keep it from being carried out. Wide latitude is allowed on cross examination to elicit facts impeaching the credibility of a witness and the scope of that examination is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Alexander v. State, 257 Ark. 343 , 516 S.W.2d 368 (1974).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.