Fields v. Woodford’s Empirical Analysis
281 F.3d 963 · 2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · Wainwright v. Witt
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“); Tobias v. Smith, 468 F.Supp. 1287, 1289-90 (W.D.N.Y.1979) (jury foreperson said”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“look upon this thing strictly on the evidence involved,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Regardless of whether the inquiries were irrelevant or improper, Fields cannot have been prejudiced. The circumstance was not mentioned again, cf. United States v. Cabrera, 222 F.3d 590, 596 (9th Cir.2000) (repeated irrelevant references to defendants' national origin), and the court's instruction, which the jury is presumed to follow, United States v. Span, 75 F.3d 1383, 1390 (9th Cir.1996), cured whatever impropriety there was. B 74 In his closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.