Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 505 F.2d 1241 - Augustus F. Heald v. Garrell S. Mullaney, Warden, Maine State Prison

Augustus F. Heald v. Garrell S. Mullaney, Warden, Maine State Prison’s Empirical Analysis

505 F.2d 1241 · 1975

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
5
states following
December 2006
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2006

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

1201975198019902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Cupp v. Naughten · Lisenba v. People of State of California

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[W]e do not believe that a mechanical per se rule of unconstitutionality is warranted for all special questions in criminal cases. In Spock we were exercising our supervisory powers and, therefore, did not have to reach constitutional ground. [Citation.] To be sure, Spock condemned special questions in terms of their effect upon the independence of juries, a ground going to the institutional integrity of juries and having plain constitutional implication. *** We have little doubt that, in general, the use of special questions and verdicts in any criminal proceeding, state or federal, is suspect not only as a matter of sound judicial policy but of due process as well. We know, however, that special questions have been permitted for some very limited purposes even in federal criminal proceedings. We cannot say that every specialized use that may emerge under state procedures and statutes necessarily violates the due process clause. Some usages may be exempt from the dangers described in Spock; for example, certain questions may plainly lack any capacity to catechize, color or coerce the jury’s decision making.” 505 F.2d 1241, 1245-46 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(t)here is no suggestion whatever that responding to the questions was ever meant by the judge to place any inhibitions upon the jury's right to acquit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.