Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 744 F.2d 1091 - Milton v. Procunier

Milton v. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis

744 F.2d 1091 · 1984

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Billy George Hughes v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,institutional Division (1999), Nichols v. Scott (1995)

35 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

5901984199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Neil v. Biggers · Gregg v. Georgia · Manson v. Brathwaite

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

  1. “... the inquiry into a'defendant’s probable future conduct is responsive to the constitutionally rooted concern that the death penalty not be administered in an arbitrary or capricious way. Certainly all “relevant” information ought to be before a jury facing this task. At the same time there remains a long-held reservation about the use of wrongdoing not then being tried. These concerns express our acceptance that a jury suffers the human weakness of blending wrongs — a result inconsistent with our fundamental commitment to charge specificity, jeopardy and due process. But these concerns are addressed by properly applied standards of relevance and sufficiency of proof. Moreover, the underlying concern that a jury may allow proof that a defendant is a bad person to color its assessment of present guilt is absent when extraneous offenses are received, as here, only at the sentencing phase.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “did have a plain meaning of sufficient content.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]o the extent that the words strike distinct chords in individual jurors, or play to differing philosophies and attitudes, nothing more is at work than the jury system.... The answer is that such words, often of great consequence, do have a common understanding in the sense that they ultimately mean what the jury says by their verdict they mean.”
    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.