Connecticut v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
363 federal appellate · 26 district · 524 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,117 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), United States v. Young (1985)
363 federal appellate · 26 district · 524 state decisions — followed in 38 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana
Cited together with Sandstrom v. Montana · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Rose v. Clark · Francis v. Franklin
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 1,117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is no reason to believe the jury would have deliberately undertaken the more difficult task”
25 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Redding v. Benson · Hill v. Maloney“whether the evidence was so dispositive of intent that a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it unnecessary to rely on the presumption.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In addition, a Sandstrom error may be harmless if a defendant conceded the issue of intent____ In presenting a defense such as alibi, insanity, or self-defense, a defendant may in some cases admit that the act alleged by the prosecution was intentional, thereby sufficiently reducing the likelihood that the jury applied the erroneous instruction as to permit the appellate court to consider the error harmless.... We leave it to the lower courts to determine whether by raising a particular defense or by his other actions, a defendant himself has taken the issue of intent away from the jury”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCleskey v. Kemp · Tucker v. Kemp
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.