107 F.3d -233 - McDowell v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
107 F.3d 1351 · 1997
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Lockett v. Ohio · Williams v. People of State of New York · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Bollenbach v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I feel I cannot say anything in light of the sentence which indicates which way they are voting, and anything I say at this particular time will be coercive. They are asking me to interpret the evidence; something I cannot do.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McDowell v. Calderon
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.