Woomer v. Aiken’s Empirical Analysis
856 F.2d 677 · 1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010
4 federal appellate · 3 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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Barefoot v. Estelle · Estelle v. Smith · Jurek v. Texas
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is of little moment that counsel was not specifically advised that the evaluation might provide a basis for addressing the issue of [the defendant's] future dangerousness since [the doctor's] opinion on that issue was predicated on the same information that.was necessarily gathered to evaluate [the defendant's] sanity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A criminal defendant, who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.