Dunaway v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2014
1 federal appellate · 15 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 18 U.S.C. § 17
Relies on United States v. Young · United States v. Frady · Lockett v. Ohio · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Lee v. Brown
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[This] plain error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."' United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 , 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ “Opinions of experts in the field of mental disorders as to an accused’s sanity or insanity are of course admissible and certainly should be carefully considered by a jury. Such opinion evidence is not, however, conclusive on the jury. The responsibility is upon the jury to weigh all the evidence, expert and lay, pertaining to the issue of the accused’s mental competency. The weight to be accorded all such evidence is solely within the jury’s province. They may reject it all even though it is without conflict.” “ ‘Fitzhugh v. State, 35 Ala.App. 18, 26 , 43 So.2d 831, 838 , cert. denied, 253 Ala. 246 , 43 So.2d 839 (1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 986 , 70 S.Ct. 1007 , 94 L.Ed. 1388 (1950).... [[Image here]] “ ‘ “Expert testimony, even when un-contradicted, is not conclusive on the issue of sanity, ... and the jury may find such testimony adequately rebutted by the observations of mere laymen.” [United States v.] Mota, 598 F.2d [995] at 999 [ (5th Cir.1979) ]. See also Greider v. Duckworth, 701 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1983) (“The jury could credit the testimony of lay witnesses over that of an expert witness”); United States v. Emery, 682 F.2d 493 , 498 n. 3 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044 , 103 S.Ct. 465 , 74 L.Ed.2d 615 (1982) (“The jury can find expert testimony adequately rebutted by the observations of laymen”). [[Image here]] “ ‘Although “a factfinder need not adhere to an expert opinion on incompetency if there is reason to discount it,” Strickland v. Francis”
2 later decisions 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.