Monk v. Zelez’s Empirical Analysis
901 F.2d 885 · 1990
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Cage v. Louisiana (1990), Mahorney v. Wallman (1990)
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 10 U.S.C. § 851 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Holland v. United States · Cupp v. Naughten · Estelle v. Williams
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I have heretofore told you that the burden is upon the State to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, by reasonable doubt is meant a doubt that is based on reason and one which is reasonable in view of all the evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is that degree of proof which satisfies the mind and convinces the understanding of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. A reasonable doubt is a doubt which reasonable men and women would entertain, and it must arise from the evidence or the lack of the evidence in this case. If after an impartial consideration and comparison of all the evidence in the case you can candidly say that you are not satisfied of the defendant’s guilt, you have a reasonable doubt. 'But if after such impartial consideration and comparison of all the evidence you can truthfully say that you have an abiding conviction of the defendant’s guilt such as you would be willing to act upon in the more weighty and important matters relating to your own affairs, you have no reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be a real, substantial doubt and not one that is merely possible or imaginary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“this section of the charge should have been in terms of the kind of doubt that would make a person hesitate to act, rather than the kind on which he would be willing to act”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'substantial and largely free of factual questions.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lundy v. Zelez · Dodson v. Zelez
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.