Biskup v. McCaughtry’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 245 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Mason v. Godinez (1995), Armstrong v. Young (1994)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Marion · Carnegie v. United States · Sumner v. Mata · United States v. Lovasco
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The hypnotic session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis and aware of its possible effects on memory so as to be able to aid in the prevention of improper suggestions and confabulation. (2) The qualified professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of either party and should have little investment in the ultimate disposition of the case. The qualified professional should have minimal preconceptions about the case. (3) Any information given to the hypnotist by either party should be noted in writing so that subsequently the extent of information that the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined. (4) Before hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain a detailed description of the facts from the subject, avoiding adding new elements to the subject's description. (5) The session should be recorded, and preferably videotaped, so that a permanent record is available to ensure against suggestive procedures. (6) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. Ieyoub“Our research poses no case in which the admission of hypnotically refreshed testimony has been held to per se violate the Confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. Ieyoub“other provision of the Constitution of the United States is the basis for a per se exclusionary rule”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. Ieyoub
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.