Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 P2D 167 - Nguyen v. State

Nguyen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2006
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2006 · most notably Prejean v. Blackburn (1989), Brecheen v. Reynolds (1994)

6 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

510198819902000decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · California 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Upon careful consideration of the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstances, and the evidence of circumstances which may in fairness and mercy be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability, we find the sentence of death factually substantiated and appropriate. Due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the jury's rejection of Stouffer's defense of self-defense and accident, the jury's finding that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel was at most harmless error. Nor can we say that the sentence of death is arbitrary or capricious after the inappropriately determined aggravating sentence is removed from consideration and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are reweighed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We find the appellant's reliance on Batson to be misplaced for two reasons. Initially, the Supreme Court stated that to establish a case of purposeful discrimination, a defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. (Emphasis added). Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1703 . The Supreme Court did not say that purposeful discrimination is to be presumed from the removal of veniremen of some racial group other than that of the defendant. Since the appellant was Vietnamese, not Black, we find Batson to be inapplicable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[I]t is improper for a trial court to instruct on the eligibility of a defendant for parole.”) We must therefore presume that a jury, in following the law given to it by the trial court, will consider a”
    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.