Bryson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Hatch v. Oklahoma (1995), Duvall v. Reynolds (1998)
8 federal appellate · 58 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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Young · Wainwright v. Witt
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.
“When the sufficiency of the evidence of an aggravating circumstance is challenged on appeal, the proper test is whether there was any competent evidence to support the State's charge that the aggravating circumstance existed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While it is proper to inquire whether a prospective juror is willing to consider the alternate punishments prescribed for First Degree Murder, we find no abuse of discretion in refusing to permit inquiry into views on particular mitigating circumstances. To permit such questioning would make voir dire an open forum for discussion of any circumstances accompanying the murder, both mitigating and aggravating. The great potential to improperly influence the jury weighs strongly in support of the trial court’s ruling in this case. While a criminal defendant in a State court is guaranteed an impartial jury by the Sixth Amendment, (cite omitted) ... the Constitution does not always entitle a defendant to propound questions during voir dire specifically directed to matters that conceivably might prejudice veniremen against him. (cite omitted) ... [t]he State in this case was able to fulfill its obligation to impanel an impartial jury with less than a specific inquiry into appellant’s area of concern, and this argument must fail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.