Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Hameen v. Delaware (2000), Gattis v. State (1994)
2 district · 37 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3501
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio
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 41 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 an 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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Garden · Sullivan v. State“This Court has traditionally commenced its mandatory statutory review by initially addressing subparagraph (b) of Section 4209(g)(2). Pennell v. State, [ 604 A.2d 1368, 1375 (1992) ]. That subsection requires this Court to examine the evidence in the record to determine whether it supports the findings of the Superior Court judge which relate to the establishment of statutory aggravating circumstances. 11 Del. C. § 4209(e). Thereafter, two additional inquiries are required by subpara-graph (a) of Section 4209(g)(2): first, whether the Superior Court judge’s imposition of the death penalty was either arbitrary or capricious; and second, whether the death penalty imposed was disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases arising under this statute. Pennell v. State, 604 A.2d at 1375; Riley v. State, Del. Supr., 496 A.2d 997, 1026 (1985) [cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1022 , 106 S.Ct. 3339 , 92 L.Ed.2d 743 (1986)]. “Each question requires a consideration of 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.” 11 DelC. § 4209(g)(2); Pennell v. State, 604 A.2d at 1375.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sullivan v. State · Manley v. State“Cases Decided Under 11 Del.C. § 4209 As Amended in 1991 by 68 Del.Laws Ch. 189 Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Meri-Ya C. Baker IN90-12-1039,1040 New Castle Life Imprisonment Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Charles M. Cohen IN90-02-0474 thru 0477 New Castle Life Imprisonment Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: David F. Dawson IK86-0024; IK87-01-0841; 0843, 0845 New Castle (venue changed) Death — Postconviction Appeal Pending Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Byron S. Dickerson IN90-12-1041,1042 New Castle Life Imprisonment Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Cornelius E. Ferguson IN91-10-0576,0578 thru 0581 New Castle Death — Postconviction Appeal Pending Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Robert A. Gattis IN90-05-1017 thru 1019,1106,1107 New Castle Death — Posteonviction Appeal Pending Arthur Govan 92-01-0166 New Castle Life Imprisonment Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Robert W. Jackson, III IN-92-04-1222 thru 1227; IN92-04-1348 and 1349 New Castle Death — Automatic Appeal Pending Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: David J. Lawrie IK92-08-0179 thru 0185; IK92-09-0148 and 0149 Kent Death — Posteonviction Appeal Pending Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Frank W. Moore, Jr. 92-09-0001, 0002,1001, 2001, 3001 Sussex Life Imprisonment Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: Jack F. Outten IN92-01-1144 and 1145 New Castle Death Case Name: Case No.: County: Sentence: James W. Perez IN93-02-1191 and 11”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. State · Wright v. State
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.