Boardman v. Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
957 F.2d 1523 · 1992
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Duckett v. Godinez (1995), Green v. French (1998)
63 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Faretta v. California · Younger v. Harris · Teague v. Lane · Arizona v. Fulminante · Williams v. People of State of New York
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Recognizing the personal nature of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to make a defense, the unique ability of a defendant to plead on his own behalf, and the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of the continuing vitality of the practice of permitting a defendant to alloeute before sentencing, we hold that allocution is a right guaranteed by the due process clause of the Constitution. Our holding is limited to circumstances in which a defendant, either unrepresented or represented by counsel, makes a request that he be permitted to speak to the trial court before sentencing. If the trial court denies that request, the defendant has not received due process.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We are not unmindful of the relevant major changes that have evolved in criminal procedure since the seventeenth century— the sharp decrease in the number of crimes which were punishable by death, the right of the defendant to testify on his own behalf, and the right to counsel. But we see no reason why a procedural rule should be limited to the circumstances under which it arose if reasons for the right it protects remain. None of these modern innovations lessens the need for the defendant, personally, to have the opportunity to present to the court his plea in mitigation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Gervasi · Harvey v. State“[t]he most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harvey v. State · State v. Greve
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.