Mollett v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.3d 902 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2024
14 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Bruton v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane · Lockett v. Ohio
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the prosecution [sought] the death penalty; (2) the prosecution place[d] the defendant’s future dangerousness at issue; (3) the jury ask[ed] for clarification of the meaning of life imprisonment, or a synonymous statutory term; and (4) the judge’s response threaten[ed] to cause a jury’s misunderstanding so the jury [could] perceive a false choice of incarceration when future dangerousness [wa]s at issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]his circuit’s decision in Johnson is relevant because, although not controlling, on-point 'federal case law inferior to Supreme Court precedent, may serve as a guide in determining reasonableness of [a] state court’s application of Supreme Court law.’ ” (second alteration in original) (quoting Bryson v. Ward, 187 F.3d 1193 , 1205 (10th Cir.1999))). Here, we apply our”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is not entirely clear whether a Simmons error is subject to harmless error analysis ... [given that] the Supreme Court has never performed a harmless error analysis in any of the three cases where the Court found a Simmons violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Richmond 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.