State v. Steckel’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 2011
3 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Zant v. Stephens · Proffitt v. Florida
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In guiding the jury’s sentencing deliberations and recommendation in the penalty phase of a capital case, the Court is compelled to give an instruction that precludes the consideration of sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, or public feeling as both irrelevant and improper.”) (citing California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 , 107 S.Ct. 837 , 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987)). 54 . Brown, 479 U.S. at 542 , 107 S.Ct. 837 (concluding that a jury instruction, which told the jury not to be swayed by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Taylor 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.