Solis v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
342 F.3d 392 · 2003
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Williams v. Bagley (2004), Conaway v. Polk (2006)
16 federal appellate · 3 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Smith v. Phillips · Murphy v. Florida · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Rideau v. Louisiana
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brooks v. Dretke · State v. Morales“[L]ooking to other cases embracing the implied bias doctrine, we find that most have done so because the juror had a close relationship with one of the important actors in the case or was otherwise emotionally involved in the case, usually because the juror was the victim of a similar crime. Noting this delineation, some courts have cautioned that bias should not be inferred unless the facts underlying the bias are such that they “would inherently create in a juror a substantial emotional involvement, adversely affecting impartiality.” In such cases, a defendant may show that a trial court’s attempts to determine whether the juror is actually biased inadequately protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial, because the allegedly prejudicial circumstances may be affecting the juror in ways the juror may not realize or may cause the juror to knowingly withhold the truth from the inquiring court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ingram v. Goodwin“Both parties agree that the Texas state courts erroneously rejected the petitioner's ... claim on procedural grounds.... We therefore review the petitioner's claim de novo rather than under the deferential standards provided in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).”
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.