Fields v. Woodford’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.3d 1095 · 2002
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably 39 Cal. 4th 641 - People v. Ledesma (2006), Williams v. Bagley (2004)
20 federal appellate · 1 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. § 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[G]iven the eyewitness testimony about what [the defendant] did to [the victim], there is no reasonable probability that the prosecutor's emotional appeal affected the verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Comer v. Schriro · Comer v. Schriro“actually render[ed] petitioner's state trial fundamentally unfair and hence, violative of due process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Comer v. Schriro · Comer v. Schriro“[T]he propriety of consolidation rests within the sound discretion of the state trial judge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Comer v. Schriro · Comer v. Schriro
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.