Knighton v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the strength of the State's case and the number of aggravating factors the jury found to exist, as well as the mitigating evidence the defense did offer and any additional mitigating evidence it could have offered,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grant v. Royal · Simpson v. Carpenter

2. “1. Jones and Duello Interview Reports. As this court has previously recognized, Brady [, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 ] provides that the State’s suppression of evidence favorable to an accused ... violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. ... This is so irrespective of the prosecution’s good or bad faith. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 .... Thus, to establish a Brady violation, a habeas petitioner must show that (1) the prosecutor suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant as exculpatory or impeachment evidence; and (3) the evidence was material.... Generally, evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 F. App'x 557 - Kordelski v. Workman

3. “Next, [Mr. Simpson] complains that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present additional evidence of innocence. He first specifically complains that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence. While [Mr. Simpson] has shown this Court that additional mitigation witnesses could have been called and others that were called could have given additional testimony, he has not shown a reasonable probability that but for counsel's alleged unprofessional error in not presenting this evidence, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simpson v. Carpenter