Davis v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
869 F.2d 1401 · 1989
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Moore v. Gibson (1999), 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006)
16 federal appellate · 9 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 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Darden v. Wainwright · Mullaney v. Wilbur
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the jury's finding of malice necessarily implies the absence of heat of passion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCormick v. State · Black v. State“the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented in a homicide case. 15 1 45 Based on its reading of Mullaney, the Lofton court reviewed the given jury instrue-tions as a whole to see if they sufficiently advised the jury of Lofton's defense and its effect on the prosecution's burden of proof. Id. at 920-21. After analysis of the instructions, the Court found the instructions deficient. Although the crimes of First Degree Murder and Manslaughter were properly defined for the jury, other instructions limited the jury's consideration of manslaughter as a defense and precluded the jury from considering the effect of the heat of passion evidence until after it determined that the crime of murder had not been proved. Id. at 921-22. The court held the structure of the jury charge coupled with the facts that the jury was not instructed that "heat of passion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Black v. State“the trial court asked: 66 If you found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant in this case was guilty of Murder in the First Degree and if under the evidence, 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 the law, the facts and the circumstances of the case, you would not inflict the Death Penalty? 67 Id. We characterized the voir dire as”
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.