Holman v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 618 · 1966
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1997 · most notably Barber v. Page (1968), Government of the Virgin Islands v. Aquino (1967)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Jackson v. Denno · Pointer v. Texas · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination to the extent guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot be sidestepped because it happens to be convenient for one of the parties. The importance of this right is emphatically demonstrated by the existence of the numerous safeguards designed for its protection. In addition to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the right is also guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alabama, Article I, Section 6, Constitution of Alabama, 1901. “The constitutional right of confrontation could never have any greater meaning than when a person is on trial for his life under an indictment charging first degree murder. . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““3. That at the time of the proceeding in the United States District Court of Appeals the petitioner here was represented by Morel Montgomery, Esq., and Fred Blanton, Esq., both of whom are licensed practicing attorneys of the State of Alabama; and in the instant proceedings in this court, the petitioner is represented by Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Esq., David H. Flood, Esq., Erskine Smith, Esq., and Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq., all of whom are practicing attorneys. “It is therefore, the opinion of the Court that the petitioner has not been indigent since the original proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. “4. That even though the petitioner has had all of the aforementioned counsel available to him since August of 1966, it appears without dispute that the petitioner has made no effort and-had made no formal request or motion for an earlier setting of his case. “5. That it is further without dispute that the case was set for trial June 10, 1968, and that the District Attorney made several efforts to secure thé identity of any attorney or attorneys who' represented the defendant and was unsuccessful in getting that information from the family of the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Washington 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.