Corn v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 549 · 1983
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2004 · most notably Francis v. Franklin (1985), Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
58 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Wade · Wainwright v. Sykes · Jackson v. Denno · Gregg 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere emotionalism and confusion do not necessarily invalidate”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he instructions were clear that the accused “may” show circumstances to negate intent, “[b]ut he is not required to do so”, and that he “may” show that the killing was done without malice, “[b]ut he is not required to do so.” .. . [Also,] the court stated “[i]f such evidence produced against the accused, if there be such, discloses the homicide was done without malice, then this presumption that the homicide is .malicious does not exist.” The instruction continued, “this presumption ... does not arise against the slayer unless it be first shown to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was the intentional slayer.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Franklin v. Francis · Davis v. Kemp“adequate guidelines to lead a reasonable juror to fully comprehend the duties and choices involved in the sentencing procedure.”
2 later decisions 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.