Robison v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
943 F.2d 1216 · 1991
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2012
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Teague v. Lane · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Payne v. Tennessee · Booth v. Maryland
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Payne merely put aside the bar to the introduction of and comment upon victim impact evidence which had been created in Booth [v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987)], and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989). The Court did not expand the universe of admissible relevant mitigating evidence established by Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). [4] ... We cannot agree that Payne portends admissibility of any evidence other than that related to the victim and the impact of the victim's death on the members of the victim's family. Nothing said by the Court suggests the Court intended to broaden the scope of relevant mitigating evidence to include the opinion of a victim's family member that the death penalty should not be invoked.... "We can take cognizance of the Court's rationale that victim impact evidence relates directly to the harm resulting from a defendant's act. The Chief Justice stated: "`Victim impact evidence is simply another form or method of informing the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question, evidence of a general type long considered by sentencing authorities.'" " Payne, 501 U.S. at 825 , 111 S.Ct. at 2608 . In this context, the desire of the victim's relative in no way constitutes relevant evidence because it does not relate to the harm caused ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. State · Ortiz v. State“[T]he opinion of a relative of a victim is irrelevant to the jury's determination of whether the death penalty should be imposed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. State · Daniel v. State
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.