Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 F.3d 561 - Satcher v. Pruett

Satcher v. Pruett’s Empirical Analysis

126 F.3d 561 · 1997

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Rose v. Lee (2001), Wilson v. Greene (1998)

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

1601997200020102020decided

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 · United States v. Wade · Kotteakos v. United States · 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Satcher’s DNA evidence does not show that the Commonwealth’s test was wrong. Specifically, it does not show that someone else was the source of the DNA sample taken from the crime scene. ... None of the experts conclude that Satcher did not contribute the DNA from the sample taken from [the victim] ... Moreover, even discounting Virginia’s DNA test altogether, we cannot say that “no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327 . It would be a different matter if, as Satcher argues, his new DNA evidence showed that he was definitely not the contributor of the DNA on the swab taken from the crime scene. But his new evidence only suggests, at best, that Virginia’s test was inconclusive.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[i]n any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “must demonstrate that the error worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, not merely that the error created a possibility of prejudice.”
    1 later decision 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.