Walker v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “As observed in Banks, a defendant who shows cause and prejudice to excuse a procedural default simultaneously satisfies the second and third elements of a Brady claim — evidence suppressed by the state and prejudice, respectively. See Banks, 540 U.S. at 691 , 124 S.Ct. 1256 . Without question, the first Brady element — the suppressed evidence is favorable to the accused — is satisfied here. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (setting forth the elements of a Brady claim). Indeed, the undisclosed reports contain powerful impeachment material, which calls into question the veracity of Bianca’s testimony. Thus, I believe that the conclusion that a Brady violation occurred flows from the finding of cause and prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Kelly

2. “The majority therefore remands for the district court to determine only whether Walker has shown the third element of a Brady claim; that is, that “the evidence at issue is favorable to [Walker], either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching.” Although the majority strangely refrains from addressing this legal question, its statement that “[t]he withheld reports provide persuasive evidence that Bianca did not see the shooter the night of [her father’s] murder,” answers this question in the affirmative. In essence, then, as suggested by Judge Gregory’s concurrence, the majority opinion results in an inevitable grant of Walker’s § 2254 petition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Walker v. Kelly

3. “Corresponding to the second Brady component (evidence suppressed by the State), a petitioner shows “cause” when the reason for his failure to develop facts in state-court proceedings was the State’s suppression of the relevant evidence; coincident with the third Brady component (prejudice), prejudice within the compass of the “cause and prejudice” requirement exists when the suppressed evidence is “material” for Brady purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Walker v. Kelly