Townes v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
68 F.3d 840 · 1995
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Dion Smallwood v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma - (1999), Matthews v. Evatt (1997)
17 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Faretta v. California · United States v. Wade · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane
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.
“[w]here the State puts the defendant's future dangerousness in issue, and the only available alternative sentence to death is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the capital sentencing jury -by either argument or instruction -that he is parole ineligible.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia, Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia · Mu'Min v. Pruett“[T]he defendant's right, under Simmons , is one of opportunity, not of result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“only that, when the state puts a capital defendant's future dangerousness in issue, the trial court may not both refuse a defendant's request that it instruct the jury on his parole ineligibility and prevent defendant from arguing that same point to the jury”
1 later decision 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.