Wiley v. Puckett’s Empirical Analysis
969 F.2d 86 · 1992
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably United States v. McVeigh (1998), United States of America v. Bountaem Chanthadara (2000)
42 federal appellate · 13 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 · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Wiley is not claiming that the robbery and pecuniary gain aggravating circumstances were invalid, improperly defined, or imprecise. Rather, he simply raises a broad-based claim that “stacking” of identical, valid aggravating circumstances mil impermissibly influence the jury in a weighing state toward returning a death sentence. Were we to grant Wiley the relief he seeks we would necessarily “break new ground,” so the rule must be classified as new.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In Hill, we found that “the Supreme Court [of Mississippi] regularly applies the contemporaneous objection rule to the cases before it.” 887 F.2d at 516 . It is true, as Wiley points out, that the Mississippi Supreme Court may disregard the procedural bar rule when plain error exists. But we acknowledged this practice in Hill and did not find that it detracted from the consistency of Mississippi’s application of the rule. Hill, 887 F.2d at 516 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. Black“We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand with instructions to return the case to the District Court to enter an order granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the State of Arizona within a reasonable period of time either corrects the constitutional error in petitioner’s death sentence or vacates the sentence and imposes a lesser sentence consistent with law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. Lucas
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.