Johnson v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “adjudicating a case where he was also an investigator for the government,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 441 F. Supp. 2d 1138 - Davis v. Jones · In re: US v.

2. “[Wjhen does a biasing influence require disqualification? Consistent with the common law, we begin in answering this question by presuming the honesty and integrity of those serving as adjudicators. Disqualification is required only when the biasing influ ence is strong enough to overcome that presumption, that is, when the influence is so strong that we may presume actual bias. This occurs in situations ... in which experience teaches that the possibility of actual basis is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. A court must be convinced that a particular influence, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weaknesses, poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gattis v. State

3. “Under the plain language of § 2254(d), as well as the United States Supreme Court’s case law, we are presented only with one narrow issue: whether the Supreme Court has ever held in any of its decisions existing at the time of the District Court’s judgment, including the three cases relied on by Johnson and the District Court, that an appearance of bias on the part of a state court judge, without more, violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. We are not, and cannot be, concerned with the issues of whether the trial judge should have recused himself sua sponte or whether the ex parte communication at issue was sufficient to constitute an appearance of bias. We assume that there was an appearance of bias.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Railey v. Webb