Sellers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Romano v. State (1993), Cargle v. State (1995)
8 federal appellate · 52 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
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Pointer v. Texas · Irvin v. Dowd
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant next asserts that his rights under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments were violated when the trial judge refused to permit voir dire to determine prospective jurors' attitudes concerning youth as a mitigating factor. The extent of voir dire rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. VanWoundenberg v. State, 720 P.2d 328, 332 (Okl.Cr. 1986) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 956 , 107 S.Ct. 447 , 93 L.Ed.2d 395 (1986). While it is proper to inquire whether a prospective juror is willing to consider the alternate punishments prescribed for First Degree Murder, we find no abuse of discretion in refusing to permit inquiry into views on particular mitigating circumstances. To permit such questioning would make voir dire an open forum for discussion of any circumstances accompanying the murder, both mitigating and aggravating. The great potential to improperly influence the jury weighs strongly in support of the trial court's ruling in this case. While a criminal defendant in a State court is guaranteed an impartial jury by the Sixth Amendment, (cite omitted) the Constitution does not always entitle a defendant to propound questions during voir dire specifically directed to matters that conceivably might prejudice veniremen against him. (cite omitted) ... the State in this case was able to fulfill its obligation to impanel an impartial jury with less than a specific inquiry into appellant's area of concern, and this argument must fail.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bryson v. State · Plantz v. State“a substantial factor in bringing about the death and the conduct is dangerous and threatens or destroys life.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. State · Smith v. State“[although such a practice may be allowed by a trial judge, it is an extraordinary measure ... Unless the danger of prejudicing the jurors by exposure to damaging information is a'grave problem or some special purpose would be served, it is unlikely that individual voir dire would be justified. We find no abuse of discretion in not allowing the procedure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Neill v. State · Romano 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.