McLain v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.3d 1383 · 1998
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Lockett v. Ohio · Lindh v. Murphy
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“You are instructed that under the State Constitution a governor is empowered to grant a reprieve, pardon or commutation after sentence following conviction of the crime. Under this power, a governor may in the future commute or modify a sentence without-of life without possibility of parole to a lesser sentence, which would include the possibility of parole. You are further instructed that such power by a governor to commute or modify a sentence is not to be-considered by you in determining whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. You may not speculate as to if or when a commutation or modification would or would not be granted to the defendant. It’s not your function to decide now whether the defendant will receive such a commutation or modification at some future date. So as far as you are concerned, you are to decide only whether the defendant should suffer the death penally or should be permitted to remain alive under the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. If upon consideration of the evidence and instructions you conclude that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the proper sentence, you must assume that the governor will perform his duty in a correct and responsible manner and will not commute this defendant's sentence unless convinced that he should be eligible for parole and can be safely released into society, in a correct and responsible manner. It would”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. Calderon“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.