Bowers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Hunt v. State (1990), Oken v. State (1992)
2 federal appellate · 51 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Lockett v. Ohio · Illinois v. Allen · Drope v. Missouri
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is [the trial judge] who is best equipped to decide the extent to which security measures should be adopted to prevent disruption of the trial, harm to those in the courtroom, escape of the accused, and the prevention of other crimes, [citations omitted.] As a discretionary matter, the [trial] judge’s decision with regard to measures for security is subject to limited review to determine if it is abused.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Cases which concern such prejudice deal with the adverse effects that such restraints have upon the accused’s presumption of innocence [citations omitted]. But appellant did not stand before the sentencing jury as an innocent man; rather he stood as a confessed murderer of three persons. The critical issue in a restraint case is the degree of prejudice caused by the restraints. Here, we can find very little prejudice since the appellant was an avowed dangerous individual.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lovell v. State““In [cited cases] we have found voir dire adequate to screen out any prejudice caused by pretrial publicity in the area from which the jury was drawn. If adequate for that, it certainly should be adequate for selection of a jury untainted with prejudice because of a defendant’s shackling. Only one juror indicated that shackling would influence him and that juror was excused.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lovell 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.