High v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
916 F.2d 1507 · 1990
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017
10 federal appellate ·
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 Penry v. Lynaugh · Zant v. Stephens · Boyde v. California · Mills v. Maryland · California v. Brown
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1.The state failed to disclose exculpatory information requested by High. 2. High was convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of false and inaccurate information knowingly presented to the jury. 3. High cannot be executed because he is actually innocent and because he had no intent to kill. 4. The state’s chief witness against High lied with respect to certain critical issues at trial. 5. High’s pretrial counsel had a conflict of interest. 6. The emotionally and racially charged atmosphere surrounding High’s trial denied him a fair trial. 7. High was denied his right to the independent and competent assistance of mental health experts. 8. The prosecutor impermissibly invoked God, religion, and the Bible as a justification for convicting High and for sentencing him to death. 9. The jurors improperly participated in a prayer session with a bailiff. 10. The trial court gave inadequate jury instructions regarding the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances. 11. Georgia’s aggravating circumstances statute has been applied unconstitutionally in High’s case. 12. The trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element of conspiracy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Boyde ... adopts substantially the same analysis adopted by this court in Peek.... The only difference in the Boyde analysis is its adoption of the reasonable likelihood standard, as opposed to the standard used by our panel, i.e., whether a reasonable juror could have failed to understand the instruction and the proper role of mitigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Waters v. Thomas
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.