Walls v. Bowersox’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.3d 827 · 1998
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably United States v. Allen (2001), Archuleta v. Galetka (2011)
13 federal appellate · 17 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 Strickland v. Washington · Estelle v. McGuire · Wainwright v. Witt · Lindh v. Murphy · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[I]t is neither unprofessional nor unreasonable for a lawyer to use surrogates to investigate and interview potential witnesses rather than doing so personally. See Harris v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 756 , 762 & n. 8 (11th Cir.1989). In fact, we have criticized counsel in other cases for failing to utilize subordinates to conduct pre-trial investigation. See Henderson v. Sargent, 926 F.2d 706, 714 (8th Cir. 1991)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“continue looking for experts just because the one he has consulted gave an unfavorable opinion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he defense team made an extensive effort to investigate Walls’s family background and to secure the family’s testimony at trial. Walls identified sixteen potential witnesses for the penalty phase [and his attorneys made every effort to make contact.] [These people were reluctant to testify.] The second-chair attorney also talked to Walls’s mother, father, and step-mother several times. [And] [flinally, lead counsel himself spoke with Walls’s mother ... In all [of their other] contacts with the defense team, the family steadfastly refused even to attend the trial, much less to testify. (Emphasis added).... [The Court stated that] [although counsel was unable to procure the testimony of the family members, we cannot say it was from a lack of effort.... “Decisions relating to witness selection are normally left to counsel’s judgment, and this judgment will not be second guessed by hindsight.” (Citations omitted). (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hanes v. Dormire
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.