Wallace v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably State v. Keith (1997), State v. Ashworth (1999)
5 federal appellate · 31 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Dusky v. United States · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Patterson v. New York · McCleskey v. Kemp
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"These guidelines must be used . . . in a trial when a defendant refuses to allow the presentation of mitigating evidence in the sentencing stage. ". . . [T]he court must ensure the defendant has an understanding of his or her rights both in the plea process and in the sentencing process: "(1) The court must inform the defendant of the right to present mitigating evidence, and what mitigating evidence is. "(2) The court must inquire both of the defendant and his attorney (if not pro se ) whether he or she understands these rights. "(3) The court should also inquire of the attorney if he or she has attempted to determine from the defendant whether there exists any evidence which could be used to mitigate the aggravating circumstances proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. "(4) If such information has been given, the attorney must advise the court what that mitigating evidence is; if the defendant has refused to cooperate, the attorney must relate that to the court. "(5) The trial court must inquire of a defendant and make a determination on the record whether the defendant understands the importance of mitigating evidence in a capital sentencing scheme, understands such evidence could be used to offset the aggravating circumstances proven by the prosecution in support of the death penalty, and the effect of failing to present that evidence. "(6) After being assured the defendant understands these concepts, the court must inquire of the defendant whether he or she”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tilley v. State · Wallace v. State“when a defendant refuses to allow the presentation of mitigating evidence in the sentencing stage.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nder whatever standard by which this Court would choose to evaluate him, the evidence — in both competency hearings, during his guilty plea and sentencing — showed unequivocally Appellant was competent, as he had a rational understanding of the nature of the charges against him and was able to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.”
2 later decisions 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.