Ainsworth v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
138 F.3d 787 · 1998
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Williams v. Woodford (2002), Alcala v. Woodford (2003)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 2244 (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 · Gideon v. Wainwright · Teague v. Lane · Estelle v. McGuire · Irvin v. Dowd
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Among the factors to be considered in a presumed prejudice argument is whether there was a barrage of inflammatory publicity immediately prior to trial amounting to a huge ... wave of public passion. An additional factor is whether the media accounts were primarily factual, as such accounts tend to be less prejudicial than inflammatory editorials or cartoons. A final factor is whether the media accounts contained inflammatory, prejudicial information that was not admissible at trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“if prejudicial pretrial publicity makes it impossible to seat an impartial jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave
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.