Odell v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis
189 F.2d 300 · 1951
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2011 · most notably Brown v. Allen (1953), Turner v. Louisiana (1965)
70 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Darr v. Burford · Frank v. Mangum · Walker v. Johnston · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Moore v. Dempsey
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Freedom from shackling and manacling of a defendant during the trial of a criminal case has long been recognized as an important component of a fair and impartial trial, [citing authority] Ordinarily such procedure should be permitted only to prevent the escape of the prisoner or to prevent him from injuring bystanders and officers of the court or to maintain a quiet and peaceable trial. Odell v. Hudspeth, 189 F.2d 300, 302 (10th Cir. 1951).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woodards v. Maxwell“a criminal prosecution in the courts of a State, based upon a law not in itself repugnant to the Federal Constitution, and conducted according to the settled course of judicial proceedings as established by the law of the State, so long as it includes notice, and a hearing, or an opportunity to be heard, before a court of competent jurisdiction, according to established modes of procedure, is `due process' in the constitutional sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Orcutt v. Wyoming“Federal courts will entertain applications for writs of habeas corpus and discharge persons detained under a state court judgment and sentence only when that custody is in violation of the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, and then only when all remedies afforded by appeal have been exhausted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Orcutt v. Wyoming
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.