King v. Lynaugh’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 1055 · 1988
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably O'Dell III v. Jd Netherland (1997), 137 Ill. 2d 500 - People v. Thomas (1990)
12 federal appellate · 13 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 Bruton v. United States · Wainwright v. Sykes · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We ... are unable to distinguish possible prejudice based on jurors' misconceptions about parole law from "a host of other possible similar prejudices." The views of a lay venireman about parole are no more likely to be both erroneous and prejudicial than are his views on the defendant's right not to take the stand, the law of parties, the reasonable doubt standard, or any other matter of criminal procedure. It is difficult to conceive how we could constitutionalize the inquiry concerning Texas parole while leaving these similar but also potentially influential matters to the broad discretion of the state trial court.... Deference to the state courts in those matters counsels deference here as well. Interrogating veniremen about Texas parole law... does not approach a level of constitutional sensitivity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. McNeil“absent certain 'special circumstances' that create a particularly compelling need to inquire into racial prejudice, the Constitution leaves the conduct of voir dire to the sound discretion of state trial judges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Knox v. Collins“[r]acial prejudice and widespread and provocative pretrial publicity have furnished the only grounds accepted to date by the Supreme Court for a constitutional challenge to the trial court's voir dire procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jacobs 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.