Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 524 So. 2d 1176 - State v. Lee

524 So. 2d 1176 - State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2018

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

1301988199020002010decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · Illinois v. Gates · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis

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

  1. “[t]here is surely a reasonable probability that this evidence might have contributed to the jury's decision [to impose the death penalty]. Listening to the confession, particularly those portions in which the defendant describes his conduct with apparent indifference, certainly could have led one or more members of the jury to conclude that he felt no remorse for his deeds. A juror listening to the confession also could reasonably be expected to experience strong emotions, ranging from mortification to outrage. Such impressions or emotions could in turn have contributed to the decision of one or more jurors to impose the death penalty.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “... The test for harmless constitutional error is "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963); State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980). Before a constitutional error can be considered harmless, the reviewing court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 . If there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of contributed to the verdict, then it can hardly be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.