101 F. Supp. 2d 866 - Henderson v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Coleman v. Thompson
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The victim’s] left hand had been cut and wrapped in a towel. This fact may have led the jury to infer that there was some lapse in time between the first aggressive act toward [the victim] and her eventual demise. Coupling the inference of a break in the time of Petitioner’s first aggressive act toward [the victim] with the coroner’s conclusion that she was eventually murdered in a horizontal position as well as the fact that her body was found nude with her legs spread apart, we believe that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that Petitioner attempted to make [the victim] submit by force or the threat of force to sexual intercourse”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[R]elief is warranted because the Court erroneously concluded in its [1999] Order that Henderson’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel ..., while not procedurally barred, had no merit.” Rule 60(b) Motion, May 7, 2002 at 1 (emphasis added). 8 . We note that Mapes also includes the following consideration as part of the inquiry into an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We believe that the trial judge's original charge to the jury correctly impressed upon them that they had to determine whether Petitioner would or would not receive the death penalty based on the weight of the aggravating factors before beginning deliberations on recommending either of the two life sentences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.