Holmes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Woods v. State (1998), Williams v. State (1999)
5 federal appellate · 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 Caldwell v. Mississippi · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Idaho v. Wright · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Doerr v. Doerr
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Reliability may be inferred if a statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or in the event the hearsay exception warrants admission, but if the exception fails to qualify as firmly rooted, the State must show `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' which include `only circumstances surrounding the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Flynn v. State · LH v. State“the trial judge’s references in the sentencing order to premeditation, deliberation, moving intently from one killing to the next, and the use of extreme force and torture, makes i[t] perfectly clear that she was considering the manner in which the aggravators occurred for the sole purpose of giving an appropriate weight to those proved aggravators.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Warlick v. State“[A] jury is not bound to convict even in the face of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it is improper for a court to instruct a jury that they have a right to disregard the law. Notwithstanding Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, a jury has no more right to ignore the law than it has to ignore the facts in a case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gonzalez 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.