Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 F.3d 990 - Gilliam v. Mitchell

Gilliam v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

179 F.3d 990 · 1999

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
December 2015
most recently cited

26 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Byrd v. Collins (2000), Jay Scott v. Betty Mitchell Warden (2000)

26 federal appellate ·

650199920002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Ohio v. Roberts · Lindh v. Murphy · Sumner v. Mata

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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Confrontation Claqse is a constitutional safeguard that ensures a defendant will not be convicted based on the charges of unseen, unknown, and unchallengeable witnesses. Thus, the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under a hearsay exception. When a hearsay declarant is not present . for cross-examination at 'trial, the Confrontation Clause requires a showing that he is unavailable and that the statement bears adequate “indicia of reliability.” The reliability standard can be satisfied without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Otherwise, to satisfy the Confrontation Clause, the evidence must be supported by a showing of “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “statements constituting a declaration against interest (and thereby falling within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule) . . . .”
    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.