State v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 177 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Marshall v. Hendricks (2002), State v. Scherzer (1997)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 177 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 18 U.S.C. § 3521 (Witness Security Reform Act of 1984) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Bagley · 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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`We anticipate that only in the unusual case will a PCR [postconviction relief] court invoke its inherent right to compel discovery. In most cases, a post-conviction petitioner will be fully informed of the documentary source of the errors that he brings to the PCR court's attention. Moreover, we note that PCR "is not a device for investigating possible claims, but a means for vindicating actual claims." People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179 , 275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 776 , 800 P.2d 1159, 1206 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 835 , 112 S.Ct. 117 , 116 L.Ed.2d 85 (1991). The filing of a petition for PCR is not a license to obtain unlimited information from the State, but a means through which a defendant may demonstrate to a reviewing court that he was convicted or sentenced in violation of his rights. . . . "`Moreover, consistent with our prior discovery jurisprudence, any PCR discovery order should be appropriately narrow and limited. "[T]here is no postconviction right to `fish' through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment, or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist." Gonzalez, supra, 275 Cal. Rptr. at 775 , 800 P.2d at 1205 ; see Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1230 , 114 S.Ct. 2730 , 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994); State v. Thomas, 236 Neb. 553 , 462 N.W.2d 862, 867-68 (1990). However where a defendant presents the PCR court with good cause to order the State to supply the defendant with”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the jury's penalty-phase deliberations would have been affected substantially.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Chew · State v. DiFrisco“[i]t is unnecessary to prove actual prejudice on the part of the court, but rather `the mere appearance of bias may require disqualification'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.