Parker v. Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2011
3 federal appellate · 2 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Brown v. Ohio · Tibbs v. Florida
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hall, therefore, at least means this: If the state convicts a defendant under the wrong statute (that is, a statute that does not encompass the defendant's otherwise criminal conduct), and that conviction is overturned on appeal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid retrial under the correct statute (that is, the statute that makes such conduct criminal), so long as there is sufficient evidence to convict under that statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“original conviction was not reversed because the evidence was insufficient, but because the state had committed 'trial error’ in 'charging and trying Parker under the wrong capital murder provision.’ ” Id. On habeas review, the district court agreed, deciding; The [Arkansas Supreme Court] in [Parker’s first direct appeal] examined the applicability of the law, not the adequacy of the proof. If the evidence was in any sense”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“From the standpoint of a defendant, it is at least doubtful that appellate courts would be as zealous as they now are in protecting against the effects of improprieties at the trial or pretrial stage if they knew that reversal of a conviction would put the accused irrevocably beyond the reach of further prosecution. In reality, therefore, the practice of retrial serves defendants’ rights as well as society’s interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Parker v. Norris
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.