Jordan v. Hargett’s Empirical Analysis
34 F.3d 310 · 1994
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Brown v. Artuz (1997), Sexton v. French (1998)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Rock v. Arkansas
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Applicant did not testify before the jury at any phase of his trial. 2. Applicant’s decision not to testify was not the result of pressure, force or coercion by either of his trial lawyers. 3. Applicant understood that he had a right to testify at his trial. 4. Applicant’s decision not to testify was made freely and voluntarily. 5. John Quinn strongly encouraged Applicant not to testify because he reasonably believed that Applicant’s testimony would damage the defense. 6. John Quinn believed that Applicant would not stand up to a thorough cross-examination by District Attorney Bill Turner. 7. John Quinn believed that the jury would not find Applicant credible. 8. John Quinn believed that Applicant’s testimony might have negated the defense that another person named Robert Combs had committed the murder. 9. John Quinn was not certain what Applicant’s testimony would be, because Applicant had told John Quinn conflicting versions of what happened on the night of the murder. 10. John Quinn’s legal advice for Applicant not to testify was reasonable. 11. John Quinn told Applicant that if Applicant took the stand, Quinn would walk out of the courtroom, but the Court does not find that this coerced the Applicant not to testify. 12. John Quinn made the above statement because John Quinn reasonably believed that Applicant would commit perjury if he testified. 13. John Quinn formed this belief in part because Applicant told him that he killed LaShan Muhlinghaus because they were love”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the final decision that he would not testify was made against his will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Robinson
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.