State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Deck v. State (2002), State v. Clay (1998)
36 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Kyles v. Whitley · State v. Ervin · State v. Parker
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[allowing juror replacement during penalty phase, but before the jury retires to deliberate, is entirely consistent with both the legislative purpose of preventing mistrials and the statutory exception. This Court concludes that the legislature intended to afford the same protection against mistrials in bifurcated cases that it afforded in non-bifurcated cases; therefore, alternate jurors may properly serve in sentencing phase deliberations only. This conclusion, of course, is also entirely consistent with the practice of conducting penalty phase trials with completely new juries whenever the imposition of the death penalty is overturned on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hester“1) Whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; 2) Whether a statutory aggravating circumstance and any other circumstances found by the trier of fact were supported by the evidence; and 3) Whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the punishment imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime, the strength of the evidence and the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barnett
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.