Willie v. Maggio’s Empirical Analysis
737 F.2d 1372 · 1984
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Tinsley v. Borg (1990), 666 So. 2d 767 - Cole v. State (1995)
38 federal appellate · 9 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 Strickland v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“either persistent and pronounced misconduct or that the evidence was so insubstantial that but for the remarks, no conviction would have occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The jury box is a holy place. To ensure that those who enter are purged of prejudice, both challenges for cause and the full complement of peremptory challenges are crucial. Therefore, as a general rule, it is error for a court to force a party to exhaust his peremptory challenges on persons who should be excused for cause, for this has the effect of abridging the right to exercise peremptory challenges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pruett v. Thigpen“the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.”
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.