Coleman v. McCormick’s Empirical Analysis
874 F.2d 1280 · 1989
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 53 Cal. 3d 68 - People v. Beardslee (1991), Campbell v. Wood (1994)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 · Chapman v. State of California · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · North Carolina v. Pearce
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[N]o constitutional violation exists without a finding that the challenged behavior presented a “reasonable probability” of having affected the outcome of the proceeding. Where a court has made such a finding in concluding that there was a constitutional violation (as where it concludes that counsel’s representation was ineffective under the Strickland standard ...) then there is no reason to superimpose the Chapman standard”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The finality and severity of a death sentence makes it qualitatively different from all other forms of punishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Q[uestion] In Judge Keedy’s order ... Judge Keedy indicates that there are certain mitigating factors that are enumerated by statute ... and that includes the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance or that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. In the report that I reviewed prepared by you, you refer to these sections ... Did you assume that your report was to be prepared within these legal guidelines? A[nswer] My report was to be prepared being fully cognizant of the nature of the conclusions of law in the order and I tried to respond in language which would indicate that I am familiar with these terms and I understand what these terms mean based on my professional practice Q Did you believe or take the position in comparing your conclusions that the mitigating factors could be anything, anything that could not be tied to deliberate criminal intent ... ? A That’s my understanding that I was to look for extreme mental or emotional disturbances and so on. Q Okay, assuming that Mr. Smith had taken LSD for a considerable number of years but specifically on a daily basis and for a month prior to the crime may have taken as much as 50 hits of LSD a day prior to this crime, may have drank as many as 12 beers on the day of the crime, what is your conclusion as to any mental effects of these drugs and whether in fact his ability to perceive reality and to act in a proper ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Smith v. McCormick
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.