Wilson v. Tard’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Morissette v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the situation where the element of the offense and the so-called “affirmative defense” pose the same ultimate issue and a state places the burden of persuasion on the defendant with respect to that ultimate issue____ [T]he relevance of the subsidiary facts in the case are the same and the sole significance of the defendants’ evidence concerning the so-called “affirmative defense” is to create a reasonable doubt about the existence of an element of the offense. In this context, as the Supreme Court of New Jersey recognized in both Breakiron [ 5 ] and Zola 1 6 ], it is not constitutionally permissible under Winship [ 7 ] and Martin [ 8 ] to charge the jury that the defendant has the burden of proving his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.