Wicker v. Ol McCotter’s Empirical Analysis
783 F.2d 487 · 1986
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Rock v. Arkansas (1987), State v. Johnston (1988)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Wainwright v. Sykes · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Stone v. Powell · Wainwright v. Witt
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To determine when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment, the inquiry is 'whether the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a test to be applied primarily by the trial court, for determinations of juror bias depend in great degree on the trial judge’s assessment of the potential juror’s demeanor and credibility, and on his impressions about that venireman’s state of mind. The trial court’s determination that a prospective juror could not perform his statutory function faithfully and impartially is accorded a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ujnder some circumstances, hypnosis may render a witness so positive, so certain, that effective cross-examination is impossible. The record in this case, however, demonstrates that [the] hypnosis did not have that effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spence v. State
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.