Spytma v. Howes’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.3d 363 · 2002
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2024
9 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Kent v. United States · Carey Warden v. Saffold · United States v. Sammons · United States v. Martin
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant, therefore, should have both the mental ability and some knowledge of the jury trial right before he is allowed to waive it. A technical knowledge of the jury trial right, however, is not what is required. A defendant is sufficiently informed to make an intelligent waiver if he was aware that a jury is composed of 12 members of the community, he may participate in the selec tion of the jurors, the verdict of the jury-must be unanimous, and that a judge alone will decide guilt or innocence should he waive his jury trial right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jells v. Mitchell“For a waiver to be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, the defendant must possess a minimum amount of knowledge concerning his jury trial right and the mental capacity to understand the implications of waiver of that right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dixon v. Jamrog“arguably not subject to harmless error analysis”
1 later decision 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.