Bundy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Johnston (1988), 608 So. 2d 784 - Fotopoulos v. State (1992)
93 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Simmons v. United States · Manson v. Brathwaite · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the criminal acts [were] connected by the close proximity in time and location, by their nature, and by the manner in which they were perpetrated.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gudinas v. State · Rohan v. State“the temporal and geographical association, the nature of the crimes, and the manner in which they were committed.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The evidence in question is based on the examination of impressions made by human teeth and their comparison with models of known human teeth for the purpose of determining whether the impressions were or probably were or could have been made by a particular individual. Bite mark comparison evidence differs from many other kinds of scientific evidence such as blood tests, `breathalyzer' tests, and radar (as well as from inadmissible techniques such as the polygraph and voice-print analyses) in that these various techniques involve total reliance on scientific interpretation to establish a question of fact. With bite mark evidence, on the other hand, the jury is able to see the comparison for itself by looking directly at the physical evidence in the form of photographs and models. People v. Slone, 76 Cal.App.3d 611 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 61 (Cal.Ct.App.1978); People v. Marx, 54 Cal.App.3d 100 , 126 Cal.Rptr. 350 (Cal.Ct.App.1975)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.