Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 F.2d 1553 - McCorquodale v. Balkcom

McCorquodale v. Balkcom’s Empirical Analysis

705 F.2d 1553 · 1983

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Gerstein v. Pugh · Irvin v. Dowd

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We repeat, however, that nothing we say today bears upon the power of a state to execute a defendant sentenced to death by a jury from which the only veniremen who were in fact excluded for cause were those who made it unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The first question is this. Would you allow your opinion about capital punishment to prevent you from voting for the death penalty in this case, regardless of what the evidence was? The [second] question is this. Would you allow your opinion about capital punishment to prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror on the issue of guilt or innocence as distinguished from the issue of punishment? If you would, would you please step forward.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. No defendant can constitutionally be put to death at the hands of a tribunal so selected.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.