487 F. Supp. 554 - Mason v. Balkcom’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... deliberate intention to kill a human being without excuse, justification or mitigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. Balkcom · Gaddy v. Linahan“impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on the issue of intent to kill to the defendant or at least removed from the prosecution the full burden resting upon it under In re Winship.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. Balkcom“state of mind and is a premeditated, deliberate intention and desire and design[ ] to unlawfully kill another human being.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gaddy v. Linahan
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.