Willingham v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.3d 917 · 2002
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), Bland v. Sirmons (2006)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively they can no longer be determined to be harmless. Unless an aggregate harmless determination can be made, collective error will mandate reversal, just as surely as will individual error that cannot be considered harmless.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Darks v. Mullin · Darks v. Gibson“has never indicated that the mandatory force inherent in the term `should' is insufficient to properly guide a jury's application of the reasonable doubt standard”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Sanders“rendered] [Mr. Turrentine’s] trial fundamentally unfair.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Turrentine v. Mullin
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.