Shaver v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis
255 F.2d 509 · 1958
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 1991 · most notably Anderson v. Maggio (1977), Smith v. Wainwright (1984)
31 federal appellate · 2 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 Ex parte Grossman · Yamashita Yamashita v. Styer US · American Seating Co. v. Zell · McKinney v. Missouri - Kansas - Texas Railroad · Corsa v. Tawes
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]ewly discovered evidence in the form of a confession by another does not render the conviction void and subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus because it goes to the merits of the conviction, not its legality.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But it is clear that questions of guilt or innocence are not matters to be considered upon petition for habeas corpus. The sole purpose of such proceedings is to test the validity or legality of the restraint of the petitioner ... Newly dis covered evidence in the form of a confession by another does not render the conviction void and subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus because it goes to the merits of the conviction, not to its legality. “This is not a new proposition. In Figueroa v. Saldana [1 Cir. 23 F.2d 327 ] ... a confession apparently absolving the petitioner was brought to light after all time for appeal had passed. The Court stated that the confession ‘might be urged as the proper subject for executive clemency, but it affords no basis for judicial action.’ ... It was set forth even more forcefully in McGuire v. Hunter [10 Cir. 138 F.2d 379, 381 ] ...: ‘... confessions of the crime ... completely absolving petitioner of any guilt therein . .. afford no basis whatever for discharge on habeas corpus.’ Cases of like import are not uncommon ... “Due process requires no more nor less than compliance with the orderly procedures long established in our law to assure fundamental fairness in criminal prosecutions. Executive clemency is the last link in the chain. That having been denied, the Court below was powerless to make this eleventh hour confession the forge in which to shape another.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Binder“questions of guilt or innocence are not matters to be considered upon petition for habeas corpus. The sole purpose of such proceedings is to test the validity or legality of the restraint of the petitioner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Quarles v. Balkcom
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.