State v. Driscoll’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2006 · most notably State v. Antwine (1987), Stringer v. Mississippi (1986)
4 federal appellate · 72 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 · Lockhart v. McCree · Jones v. Howard · Sullivan v. United States · Maryland v. United States Tandy Corporation v. United States North American Telephone Association v. United States Illinois v. United States
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“impact[s] so substantially upon the rights of the defendant that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if [the error is] left uncorrected.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; (2) Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or judge’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in subsection 2 of section 565.032 and any other circumstance found. (3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime, the strength of the evidence and the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The defendant in Roberts argued that it was plain error for the trial court not to have declared a mistrial or admonish the jury when the prosecutor informed the jury that their verdict would serve only as a recommendation to the trial judge. "In rejecting this argument we began by pointing out that in Missouri, Rule 29.05 vests in the trial court the `power to reduce ... punishment ... for the offense if [the court] finds the punishment excessive.' Consequently we concluded that the prosecutor's statement that the trial judge could reduce the sentence was a correct statement of law. Roberts , at 869. Additionally, we noted that the defendant in Roberts had failed to enter an objection when the prosecutorial comments were made. Roberts , at 869. Furthermore, we found that Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), under the facts of Roberts , did not compel a finding of plain error because Caldwell involved a clearly inaccurate statement of lawwhich was not the case in Roberts . In this same respect, Caldwell is distinguishable from the facts of the present case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.