Davis v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
51 F.3d 457 · 1995
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2011 · most notably Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (2004), Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman (2007)
37 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Teague v. Lane · Penry v. Lynaugh · Saffle v. Parks · MacKey v. United States · California v. Brown
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a 'uniquely severe permanent handicap[ ] with which the defendant was burdened through no fault of his own,' and (2) that the criminal act was attributable to this severe permanent condition.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first inquiry in a Penry claim is whether the mitigating evidence is relevant. Phrased differently, does the evidence implicate the basic concern of Penry that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background, or to emotional and mental problems, may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse. ... In order to present relevant evidence that one is less culpable for his crime, the evidence must show (1) a uniquely severe permanent handicap with which the defendant is burdened through no fault of his own, ... and (2) that the criminal act was attributable to this severe permanent condition. 10”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1 Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the conduct of the Defendant ... was committed deliberately and with reasonable expectations that ... death ... would result? SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 2 Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that the Defendant ... would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society? SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 3 Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the Defendant ... was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any [by the victim(s) ]?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bigby v. Dretke · Coble v. Dretke
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.