State v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably State v. Cummings (1997), State v. Lawrence (2000)
50 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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Sandstrom v. Montana · Penry v. Lynaugh · Francis v. Franklin · Morgan v. Illinois
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"All of the evidence tends to show [named mitigating circumstance]. Accordingly, as to this mitigating circumstance, I charge that if you find the facts to be as all the evidence tends to show, you will answer, `Yes,' as to the mitigating circumstance Number [#] on the issue and recommendation form if one or more of you deems it to have mitigating value."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Atkins · State v. Thompson“[PROSECUTOR]: Ladies and gentlemen, the last point I am going to make. Think about this. Are you satisfied that he was insane on December 9, 1991.[sic] The state submits to you that you are not. If you are even thinking about it, remember this. Not guilty by reason of insanity is not guilty. Oh, it has a little bit more wording there but the effect is not guilty. When you say not guilty you are saying that no crime was committed. You are saying David Lynch— [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: (Interrupting) — OBJECTION to that argument THE COURT: OVERRULED [PROSECUTOR]: You are saying David Lynch didn’t kill and assault. Are you satisfied? When you say not guilty that means there are no restrictions on Mr. Lynch. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: OBJECTION THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Well, OVERRULED as to that statement. [PROSECUTOR]: No restrictions. Perhaps some day he becomes your neighbor. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: (Interrupting) — OB JE CTION THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Stay within the bounds of argument. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ask the Court to instruct the jury to disregard the last statement. THE COURT: ALLOWED. Members of the jury, do not take the last statement of the district attorney in consideration in your jury deliberations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lynch v. Polk“We conclude that in this case the trial court properly controlled the prosecutor’s closing argument so as to avoid any prejudicial error to the defendant. During the prosecutor’s closing arguments the trial court intervened ex mero motu and specifically instructed the jury not to take the prosecutor’s personal opinions into consideration. The jurors were also instructed to disregard statements by the prosecutor that defendant would be under no restrictions if found not guilty .... Based on our careful review of the prosecutor’s closing argu ment and the instructions given by the trial court during the closing argument, defendant’s assignment of error is overruled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lynch v. Polk
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.