State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
195 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Green (1994), State v. Barnes (1997)
195 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Ake v. Oklahoma · Proffitt v. Florida · Segura v. United States · Brewster v. Derwinski
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] mitigating circumstance is a fact, or a group of facts which do not constitute a justification or excuse for a killing, or reduce it to a lesser degree of crime than first degree murder, but which may be considered as extenuating, or reduces the moral culpability of the killing, and makes it less deserving of extreme punishment than other first degree murders.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jones · State v. Robinson“Nor are we persuaded by the defendant's contention that McKoy requires a juror to consider, at Issue Three and Issue Four, those mitigating circumstances which he or she did not find, but which were found by one or more other jurors. Were we to adopt this reading of McKoy and its progenitors, we would create an anomalous situation where jurors are required to consider mitigating circumstances which are only found to exist by a single holdout juror. We do not believe that the decisions in McKoy or Mills [v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988) ] intended this anomalous result. The jury charge given in this case did not preclude the jurors from giving effect to all mitigating evidence they found to exist. This charge eliminates the defect found unconstitutional in McKoy .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ar from precluding a juror's consideration of mitigating circumstances he or she may have found, the instant instruction expressly instructs that the evidence in mitigation must be weighed against the evidence in aggravation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Robinson · State v. Gell
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.