Shaw v. Terhune’s Empirical Analysis
353 F.3d 697 · 2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Agurs · Berger v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[cjlearly established federal law prohibits a prosecutor from “knowingly presenting false evidence;” it does not preclude that prosecutor from suggesting inconsistent interpretations of ambiguous evidence. When prosecutors confront truly ambiguous evidence that supports multiple convictions for what is inherently a unilaterally committed crime, there are competing concerns involved. In these situations, prosecutors must retain some amount of discretion to change theories in later trials. Since no clearly established federal law precludes a prosecutor from supporting two theories which are in tension with one another but which are each arguably supported by ambiguous evidence, Shaw’s due process rights were not violated....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. E. SIFRIT v. State
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.