Hughes v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.2d 1250 · 1978
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably 185 Wis. 2d 168 - State v. Escalona-Naranjo (1994), State v. Marks (1982)
33 federal appellate · 29 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Chambers v. Mississippi · Morissette v. United States · Mullaney v. Wilbur
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process,'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. (2) As used in this chapter, the terms 'mental disease or defect' do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. (3) Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense which the defendant must establish to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Having thus determined that psychiatric testimony was relevant and competent under state law, we acknowledged that the right of a defendant to present such evidence may ‘ “bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process,” ’ and proceeded to ‘closely examine [ ]’ the ‘two main justifications’ for the Wisconsin practice. Id. [at 1258] (citation omitted). The first justification — the fear that the guilty would be absolved of criminal liability— was considered ‘unpersuasive in the present case where the testimony was offered only to show that a second-degree murder conviction was proper,’ but we expressly reserved judgment on the sufficiency of this justification in other circumstances. Id. Regarding the second justification — ensuring the integrity of Wisconsin’s bifurcated trial system— ‘confining ourselves to the facts of [Hughes’] case’ we noted that no bifurcated trial occurred, and that Hughes had ‘admitted the act’ and argued only he lacked intent to kill. We thus concluded that the state’s second justification (based on the concerns about duplicative evidence, and self-incrimination concerns) was ‘not applicable here.’ Id. at 1257 .””
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.