Janecka v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.3d 316 · 2002
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The only specific point Janecka suggests Duff-Smith would have made had he been able to testify at trial was that he did not pay Waldhauser to hire Janecka to murder the Wanstraths.... Because the State’s theory was that Waldhauser, rather than Duff-Smith, paid Janecka to kill the Wan-straths, any evidence that Duff-Smith did not intend for Waldhauser to hire Janecka would have been of little value.” Id. at 327 . Scroggins's description of Thomas’s poten-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. Duff-Smith’s testimony would dispute that Janecka was in the chain of remuneration for this crime; 2. Duff-Smith’s testimony would establish that he did not pay Walt Waldhauser to pay Janecka to murder; 3. Duff-Smith would testify that various state witnesses were lying; 4. Duff-Smith would testify that if Janecka did murder for hire, he did it out of duress from the mafia; and 5. Duff-Smith would testify in mitigation of sentence.” Id. at 326 .”
1 later decision 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.