Lindh v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
124 F.3d 899 · 1997
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2011
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Kotteakos v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applicable precedents, particularly Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), and Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), say that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine a witness about potential sources of bias, but that the trial judge may place limits on the examination to prevent what the rules of evidence call “the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury”. Fed.R.Evid. 403.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Childers v. Floyd“trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Splunge v. Parke
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.