Richardson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Green v. State (1996), Alvarado v. State (1995)
1 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 Woodson v. North Carolina · Penry v. Lynaugh · California v. Brown · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Graham v. Collins
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [Richardson] has made no showing that, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, his alleged childhood experience of poverty, parental neglect, illiteracy, and a speech disorder tends to excuse his capital crime. He has also made no showing that the alleged fact that his mother taught him to shoplift tends to excuse his capital crime. [[Image here]] Our conclusion might be different if [Richardson] had presented evidence that his mother had taught him to kill or commit other crimes of violence, or if his capital crime had begun as a robbery. Such evidence might, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, tend to excuse appellant’s criminal behavior in that it might indicate that his personality had been damaged through no fault of his own and that his capital crime was caused in part by that damaged personality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Earhart v. State“... Where the evidence presented by defendant’s witnesses faded to show a connection between the events they described and the commission of the crime, then that “evidence is not relevant, beyond the scope of the special issues, to the jury’s individualized assessment of Appellant’s moral culpability for the crime.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Earhart v. State“a defendant must establish a nexus between the mitigating evidence and the circumstances of the offense which tend to excuse or explain the commission of the offense, suggesting that the defendant is less deserving of a death sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ford 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.