Spivey v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
661 F.2d 464 · 1981
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2004), 50 Cal. 3d 1223 - People v. Gordon (1990)
73 federal appellate · 16 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“So long as the instruction clearly communicates that the law recognizes the existence of circumstances which do not justify or excuse the offense, but which, in fairness or mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability and punishment ..., this portion of the constitutional requirement is satisfied.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Moore v. Kemp · High v. Kemp“Ladies and gentlemen, you have found the defendant guilty of the offense of murder. It is now your duty to determine, within the limits prescribed by law, the penalty that shall be imposed as punishment for that offense. In reaching this determination you are authorized to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the laws of this State, every person guilty of the offense of murder, shall be punished by life in the penitentiary, or death by electrocution. I charge you that before you would be authorized to find a verdict fixing a sentence of death by electrocution, you must find evidence of statutory aggravating circumstances, as I will define to you later in the charge, sufficient to authorize the supreme penalty of the law. I charge you that a finding of statutory aggravating circumstance shall only be based upon evidence convincing your mind beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of one, or of the factual condition in connection with the defendant’s perpetration of acts for which you have found him guilty. [Sic] Now, the law provides certain aggravating circumstances which you may consider for this purpose. If the offense of murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the crime of another capital felony, in this case, the capital felony charged by the State is that of armed robbery, I have given you in charge, you have received the definition of armed robbery. The statutory instructions that you are authorized to consider will be submitt”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goodwin v. Balkcom · Morgan v. Zant“[i]n most cases, this will mean that the judge must clearly and explicitly instruct the jury about mitigating circumstances and the option to recommend against death; in order to do so, the judge will normally tell the jury what a mitigating circumstance is and what its function is in the jury’s sentencing deliberations.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goodwin v. Balkcom · Peek v. Kemp
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.