Robedeaux v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Romano v. State (1995), Williams v. State (2001)
41 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court absent an abuse thereof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Well, it’s very difficult sometimes for people to sleep for anything, you know. This is one of those times you just have to do what you think is right. You say you probably could. Now we’re talking about where the law and the evidence warrant, could you agree on a verdict imposing the death penalty. I’m not trying to make you say one or the other; I’m just asking what you think? PROSPECTIVE JUROR KOLAR: No, no I could not. THE COURT: If you found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of Murder in the First Degree, and if, understand the evidence, the facts and circumstances of the case, the law would permit you to consider a sentence of death, are your reservations about the death penalty such that, regardless of law, the fact and circumstances of the case, you would not inflict the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR KOLAR: No sir, I would not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. State“group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; (3) this underrepresentation is caused by systematic exclusion of that group in the jury selection process. The Supreme Court has never defined the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bryson 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.