Dickey v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
859 F.2d 1365 · 1988
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2003
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Sandstrom v. Montana · Cupp v. Naughten · Rose v. Clark · United States v. Hasting
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State argues that use of the word “may” before “presume” distinguishes this case from Sandstrom and allows, but does not require, the jury to reach a particular conclusion on the ultimate fact. Despite the semantic appeal of the State’s argument, we must conclude that the challenged instruction displays the same basic infirmity found in the instruction rendered unconstitutional by the Sandstrom court. A juror here might reasonably have interpreted the permissive language (i.e., “may”) as mandatory, and consequently, could have impermissibly relied upon a presumption similar to the one condemned in Sandstrom . The. Court in Sandstrom accepted the fact that some jurors -could have interpreted the challenged instructions as permissive. The first essential inquiry, however, is whether a “reasonable juror” could have viewed the presumption as conclusive or burden-shifting.. We conclude, as a threshold matter, that a reasonable juror could have interpreted “you may presume” in a burden-shifting manner. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Morgan v. Corcoran
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.