Cupit v. Whitley’s Empirical Analysis
28 F.3d 532 · 1994
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Reynaldo Requena-Rodriguez v. Kenneth Pasquarell, Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Director (1999), Murr v. United States (2000)
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 631 (Federal Magistrate Act of 1979)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to concluded that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether such an [evidentiary] error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witnesses] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sherman v. Scott“; 64 (2) whether prosecutors misused a confession or otherwise engaged in misconduct; 65 (3) whether a joint trial or the wholesale denial of cross-examination was involved; 66 (4) whether the most important prosecution witness, as well as other prosecution witnesses, was available for cross-examination; and 67 (5) the degree to which the hearsay evidence is supported by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gochicoa v. Johnson
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.