United States v. Sampson’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 18 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 42 Cal. 4th 763 - People v. Kelly (2007), 50 Cal. 4th 547 - People v. Brady (2010)
6 federal appellate · 18 district · 10 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 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 2340 · 18 U.S.C. § 3292 · 18 U.S.C. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3592
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Lockett v. Ohio · Pierce v. Underwood · Ring v. Arizona · Russello v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n order to determine which of the many other cases are sufficiently similar to this case to bear on the question of proportionality, the jury would have had to hear a large amount of evidence. In effect, the court would have had to conduct, many mini-trials of other FDPA cases, since a jury would be unable to perform meaningful proportionality review based on brief summaries of other cases. Rather, in order- to fully appreciate, the verdicts reached in those cases, jurors in this case would, have had to hear substantial testimony regarding the crime and the defendant in the other cases. The amount.of time that would have had to be spent educating, jurors regarding all other FDPA cases in a non-prejudicial manner, which could have been measured in weeks or months, as compared to the amount of time spent on the mitigation case as a whole, likely would have diverted the jury’s focus from the facts relating to Sampson and his crimes.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[A]dmission of the video would have been unfairly prejudicial in light of the fact that the jury heard powerful, poignant testimony about Jonathan Rizzo's full life and the impact of his loss on his family, and saw photographs of him in conjunction with this testimony. The video, given its length and the number of photos displayed, would have constituted an extended emotional appeal to the jury and would have provided much more than a `quick glimpse' of the victim's life. Together with the evocative accompanying music, the videotape images would have inflamed the passion and sympathy of the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(а) Mitigating factors. — In determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed on a defendant, the finder of fact shall consider any mitigating factor, including the following: (1) Impaired capacity. — The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct or to conform conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, regardless of whether the capacity was so impaired as to constitute a defense to the charge. (2) Duress. — The defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, regardless of whether the duress was of such a degree as to constitute a defense to the charge. (3) Minor participation. — The defendant is punishable as a principal in the offense, which was committed by another, but the defendant’s participation was relatively minor, regardless of whether the participation was so minor as to constitute a defense to the charge. (4) Equally culpable defendants. — Another defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the crime, will not be punished by death. (5) No prior criminal record. — The defendant did not have a significant prior history of other criminal conduct. (б) Disturbance. — The defendant committed the offense under severe mental or emotional disturbance. (7)Victim’s consent. — The victim consented to the criminal conduct that resulted in the victim’s death. (8)Other factors. — Other factors in the defendant’s background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that mitigate against impo”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.