Woods v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably State v. Jucht (2012), Luna v. Solem (1987)
2 federal appellate · 26 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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Johnson · State v. McBride · Grooms v. State · State v. Tchida
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`First, ... that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, ... that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Class · Roden v. Solem“A person is an accessory to a crime, if, with intent to hinder, delay or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for the commission of a felony, he renders assistance to the other person. There are no accessories to misdemeanors. "Render assistance” means to: (1) Harbor or conceal the other person; (2) Warn the other person of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this does not apply to a warning given in an effort to bring the other person into compliance with the law; (3) Provide the other person with money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise or any other thing to be used in avoiding discovery or apprehension; (4) Obstruct anyone by force, intimidation or deception in the performance of any act which might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of the other person; or (5) Conceal, destroy or alter any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of the other person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Bradley“As in Woods , the evidence does not indicate that [the witness] “knowingly,-voluntarily, and with a common intent — with the principal offender — united in the commission of the crime of premeditated murder.” No evidence suggests that he promoted, facilitated, planned or participated in premeditated murder. Nor is there evidence that he aided, abetted, or advised [the defendant] in committing premeditated murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Jucht
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.