Jurek v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably Lockett v. Ohio (1978), Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 102 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Furman v. Georgia · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Ruffalo v. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n · 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... In determining the likelihood that the defendant would be a continuing threat to society, the jury could consider whether the defendant had a significant criminal record. It could consider the range and severity of his prior criminal conduct.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Hammett v. State“"(a) Upon a finding that the defendant is guilty of a capital offense, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The proceeding shall be conducted in the trial court before the trial jury[, unless waived,] as soon as practicable. [If the trial jury has been waived or the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury empaneled for that purpose unless waived by the defendant.] In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the Court deems relevant to sentencef, and shall include matters relating to any to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in Subsections (e) and (f) of this section. Any evidence that the court deems to have probative value may be admitted, regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, but the defendant shall be accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements]. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Texas. The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Grunsfeld v. State““limits the circumstances under which the State may seek the death penalty to a small group of narrowly defined and particularly brutal offenses. This insures that the death penalty will only be imposed for the most serious crimes It also insures that the death penalty will only be imposed for the same type of offenses which occur under the same types of circumstances.” Jurek v. State, 522 S.W.2d at 939 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hovila v. State · Rogers v. State
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.