Griffin v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 895 · 1994
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Sidebottom v. Delo (1995), Sloan v. Delo (1995)
27 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Neil v. Biggers · Wainwright v. Sykes · Griffin v. California
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a prospective juror cannot be expected to say in advance of trial whether he would in fact vote for the extreme penalty in the case before him. The most that can be demanded of a venireman in this regard is that he be willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law, and that he not be irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDonald v. Delo“If you unanimously decide that a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you to exist, then you must return a verdict fixing defendant’s punishment at imprisonment for life by the Division of Corrections without eligibility for probation or parole until he has served a minimum of fifty years of his sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDonald v. Bowersox
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.