Gaskins v. McKellar’s Empirical Analysis
916 F.2d 941 · 1990
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Allen (2007), United States v. Chandler (1993)
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Davis v. Alaska · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is difficult to see how, in context, the trial judge’s use of the word “recommend” could have had an effect on the sentencing decision____ [Djuring voir dire, the trial judge, the solicitor and [defendant’s] attorney repeatedly told each juror that the jury could sentence to death or life imprisonment, that the jury had to make the decision, and that “the jury will be asked to decide his punishment, either life imprisonment or death by electrocution.” ... Nowhere in this case did anyone even imply that the jury’s recommendation was non-binding. Though, in retrospect, we believe a wiser course would have been for the trial judge to explicitly instruct the jury that the word “recommendation” meant “binding recommendation,” under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the jury was properly aware of its sentencing responsibilities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Middleton v. Evatt · Smith v. Dixon“so infected the trial and sentencing with unfairness that the ultimate conviction and sentence constituted a denial of due process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a witness indicates that he will assert the fifth amendment privilege, the trial judge must make a proper and particularized inquiry into the legitimacy and scope of the witness' assertion of the privilege. A witness may be totally excused only if the court finds that he could legitimately refuse to answer any and all relevant questions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.