Miller v. Francis’s Empirical Analysis
269 F.3d 609 · 2001
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably State v. Hale (2008), State v. Perez (2009)
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 58 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 Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Irvin v. Dowd · Lockhart v. Fretwell
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because Miller’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is founded upon a claim that counsel failed to strike a biased juror, Miller must show that the juror was actually biased against him. Hughes, 258 F.3d at 458 . Miller has failed to meet his burden. Furrow’s prior knowledge of the. case was not extensive or detailed. Furrow indicated during voir dire that [the victim’s mother] told her over the phone that her son had been raped, but did not disclose the name of the suspect or any details of the event or the investigation. Furrow agreed that she would not necessarily assume that what [the victim’s mother] told her was true and that she could base her judgment on the evidence presented at trial. Jurors need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved in the case. [Irvin, 366 U.S. at 722 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 .]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Webb · State v. Burns“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lyons v. Jackson · Bugh v. Mitchell“'[f]ew decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.'”
3 later decisions 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.