Deutscher v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Petrocelli v. State (1985), Commonwealth v. Gould (1980)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 87 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Brinegar v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhe term “mutilate” means to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of the body, or to cut off or alter radically so as to make imperfect.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State · Rogers v. State“We subscribe to the rule of law which provides that when an accused voluntarily waives his right to silence and his right to counsel, he concurrently waives his right to be seasonably arraigned. The reason for this rule is that the primary purpose of an arraignment is to inform the defendant of his rights. But a delay in arraignment is not prejudicial when a defendant has already been advised of his rights, was promptly so advised, and voluntarily waived his rights. This is particularly so when the delay is not flagrant and the record is silent relative to any other irregularities which go to the issue of voluntariness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Powell v. State · Elvik v. State“(b) Whether the evidence supports the finding of an aggravating circumstance or circumstances; (c) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor; and (d) Whether the sentence of death is excessive, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. State · Chappell 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.