Tracey v. Palmateer’s Empirical Analysis
341 F.3d 1037 · 2003
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Irvin v. Dowd · Smith v. Phillips · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Tumey v. State of Ohio
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.
“[a] court confronted with a colorable claim of juror bias must undertake an investigation of the- relevant facts and circumstances. An informal in camera hearing may be adequate for this purpose; due process requires only that all parties be represented, and that the investigation be reasonably calculated to resolve the doubts raised about the juror’s impartiality. So long as the fact-finding process is objective and reasonably explores the issues presented, the state trial judge’s findings based on that investigation are entitled to a presumption of correctness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sims v. Rowland“[t]he trial judge never inquired further to ascertain the source of [the jurors’] biased opinions. Assume one of these jurors testified that her opinion was formed before trial by reading an excerpt of the case in the newspaper; or that an outside source had approached her before trial; or assume one of these jurors might have said that she felt that anyone charged with a crime was guilty of a crime — reviewing courts will never know .the basis of her prejudgment because the trial court failed to investigate the source of the obvious bias.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haxhia v. Lee“[i]t would be a mockery of justice to say that the sentence relied upon by the majority [about how a hearing 'may' be proper] reduces the application of the constitutional mandate required of state courts to a matter of discretion when there exists a clear, colorable claim of bias. In this case, as in many other state habeas cases, the trial court owed a duty to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Haxhia v. Lee
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.