Rodriguez v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.3d 739 · 1997
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Mancuso v. Olivarez (2002), Weaver v. Thompson (1999)
34 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Quercia v. United States · Henderson v. Brown · United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Murphy v. Sullivan
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“place great weight on the nature of the extraneous information that has been introduced into deliberations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[j]uror misconduct which warrants relief generally relates directly to a material aspect of the case”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“THE COURT: Ms. Cross, may I inquire of you further. THE FOREPERSON: Your Honor, we have not reached a decision. THE COURT: Has the numerical division changed? THE FOREPERSON: Yes, your Hon- or, it has. But there is at least one person on each side that has no intention of changing their mind and reaching a compromise. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case has taken approximately seven days of trial túne counting the voir dire. You have deliberated, I believe, over six hours. You report to me that you are experiencing difficulty in arriving at a verdict. This is an important case and a serious matter to all concerned. You are the exclusive judges of the facts, the Court is the judge of the law. Now, I most respectfully and earnestly request of you that you return to your jury room and resume your deliberations. Further open and frank discussion of the evidence and the law submitted to you in this case may aid you in arriving at a verdict. This does not mean that those favoring any particular position should surrender their honest convictions as to the weight or effect of any evidence solely because of the opinion of other jurors or because of the importance of arriving at a decision. No juror should ever agree to a verdict that is contrary to the law and the Court’s instructions nor find the fact or concur in a verdict which in good conscience he or she believes to be untrue. This does mean that you should give respectful consideration to each other’s views an”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.