State v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Rizzo (2003), James William Riley v. Stanley W. Taylor M. Jane Brady (2001)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 38 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Woodson v. North Carolina · Dobbert v. Florida
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) The Supreme Court shall limit its review under this section to the recommendation on and imposition of the penalty of death and shall determine: a. Whether, considering the totality of evidence in aggravation and mitigation which bears upon the particular circumstances or details of the offense and the character and propensities of the offender, the death penalty was either arbitrarily or capriciously imposed or recommended, or disproportionate to the penalty recommended or imposed in similar cases arising under this section. b. Whether the evidence supports the judge’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in subsection (e) of this section and, where applicable, § 636(a)(2)-(7) of this title.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Garden v. State · State v. Ferguson“1. Does the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following statutory aggravating circumstance? The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of Robbery. Yes_ No_ (Place the number of jurors (Place the number of jurors answering in answering in the affirmative here.) the negative here.) 2. Does the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following statutory aggravating circumstance? The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of Burglary. Yes_ No_ (Place the number of jurors (Place the number of jurors answering in answering in the affirmative here.) the negative here.) 3. Does the jury find by a preponderance of the evidence, after weighing all relevant evidence in aggravation or mitigation which bears upon the particular circumstances or details of the commission of the offense and the character and propensities of the offender, that the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances found to exist? Yes_ No_ (Place the number of jurors (Place the number of jurors answering in answering in the affirmative here.) the negative here.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gattis v. Snyder · State v. Garden“Although not the final arbiters of punishment, jurors still play a vital and important role in the sentencing procedure. The jury sits as the conscience of the community in deciding whether to recommend life imprisonment or the death penalty. Any personal views which would prevent its members from impartially performing this solemn responsibility in accordance with the trial court’s instructions are impermissible and contrary to law.”
4 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.