Green v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
160 F.3d 1029 · 1998
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Colon (2004), United States v. Holmes (2005)
34 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The record shows that the prosecution never asked prospective jurors a hypothetical question based on the specific facts of the case at hand, thereby “committing” them to find Green guilty. Rather, the prosecution properly limited itself to hypothetical questions regarding the application of general legal issues that would be involved in the case. Specifically, the prosecution asked whether a juror could convict for capital murder if (i) the predicate felony was unsuccessful (e.g., murder in the course of an unsuccessful burglary) or (ii) a defendant were an aider and abettor rather than the triggerman. In both instances, the [ ] prosecution’s statement of Texas law was substantially correct, and the jurors were asked general hypothetical questions not implicating the unique facts of the case at hand. Therefore, neither the prosecution’s hypothetical questions nor its explanation of applicable Texas law was the basis for a valid objection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.