State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Gaines (1997), State v. Barnes (1997)
106 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Witt · Powers v. Ohio · Adams v. Texas
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has refused to hold McKoy error harmless where [the Court has] found `credible evidence supporting at least one submitted, but unfound mitigating circumstance'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Zuniga · Allen v. Rc Lee“This Court, in the McKoy error cases, has not inquired as to how individual jurors might have balanced the aggravating and mitigating evidence to resolve the harmlessness issue. On this issue, our only inquiry has been whether the evidence is such that one or more jurors could reasonably have found a statutory mitigating circumstance to exist. Where we have concluded there is such evidence, unless there is in the record something, such as a [post-verdict] poll, by which we can determine that the mitigating circumstance was unanimously rejected, we have consistently held McKoy error to be not harmless and the defendant entitled to a new capital sentencing proceeding. We have not thought it our function, in resolving the harmlessness issue, to surmise how one or more jurors might weigh the aggravating and mitigating evidence, which is capsulized in the form of individually submitted “circumstances.” This func tion, we continue to believe, is solely for the trial jurors who hear the evidence and are -properly instructed on the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In order to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination, the prosecution must “articulate legitimate reasons which are clear and reasonably specific and related to the particular case to be tried which give a neutral explanation for challenging jurors of the cognizable group.” These reasons “ ‘need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause.’ ” “So long as the motive does not appear to be racial discrimination, the prosecutor may exercise peremptory challenges on the basis of ‘legitimate hunches and past experience.’ ” “Since the trial judge’s findings . . . will, turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” [Citations omitted.]”
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.