Wright v. Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.2d 1071 · 1978
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Teague (1992)
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Anders v. California · Chapman v. State of California · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Morrissey v. Brewer
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To deny a defendant the right to tell his story from the stand dehumanizes the administration of justice. I cannot accept a decision that allows a jury to condemn to death or imprisonment a defendant who desires to speak, without ever having heard the sound of his voice.” Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 at 1078 (5th Cir.1978) (Godbold, J., dissenting).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The defendant, of course, has the authority-in the first instance to accept or reject court-appointed representation. If he decides to accept an attorney, the defendant has necessarily delegated important decisionmaking authority to his attorney---No one could seriously contend that a defendant is in a better position to dictate trial strategy than his attorney____ No attorney could discharge this duty if he must yield to the personal demands of his client.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Certain decisions relating to the conduct of the case are ultimately for the accused and others are ultimately for defense counsel. The decisions which are to be made by the accused after full consultation with counsel are: (i) what plea to enter; (ii) whether to waive jury trial; and (iii) whether to testify in his or her own behalf.”
2 later decisions 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.