Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 921 F.2d 667 - Sizemore v. Fletcher

Sizemore v. Fletcher’s Empirical Analysis

921 F.2d 667 · 1990

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
9
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Abboud (2006), United States v. Jackson-Randolph (2002)

21 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

1901990200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Berger v. United States · United States v. Young · Rose v. Lundy

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the jury and prejudice the accused; whether they were isolated or extensive; whether they were deliberately or accidently placed before the jury, and the strength of the competent proofs introduced to establish the guilt of the accused.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “prosecutors must enjoy considerable latitude in presenting arguments to a jury, and that reversal of a conviction should not be ordered when a prosecutor's behavior, even though inappropriate, has not resulted in prejudicial error.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hen a prosecutor has made repeated and deliberate statements clearly designed to inflame the jury and prejudice the rights of the accused, and the court has not offered appropriate admonishments to the jury, we cannot allow a conviction so tainted to stand.”
    3 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.