Baldwin v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
152 F.3d 1304 · 1998
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Lambert v. Blodgett (2004), Williams v. Head (1999)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Murray v. Carrier
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although whether a Hitchcock error occurred is a legal question, “it is almost entirely dependent upon the answer to a question of fact: did the sentencing judge consider any and all nonstatutory mitigating circumstance evidence that was presented to him?” Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028 , 1032 (11th Cir.1994), ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 911 , 130 L.Ed.2d 793 (1995). The district court’s finding, therefore, with regard to this factual question-i.e., what the sentencing judge knew or did--is subject to reversal only if clearly erroneous. See Spaziano, 36 F.3d at 1032 (reviewing the district court’s findings-based on the state record, documentary evidence, or inferences from other facts-that the sentencing judge knew he was bound to consider, and did consider, nonstatutory mitigating evidence for clear error).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Quince v. Crosby“[a] defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cabberiza v. Moore“A Hitchcock error is harmful only if it `had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's [or the court's] verdict.'”
1 later decision 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.