Baze v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 4 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A fair opportunity to present a defense is a constitutional right. Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (citing eases). Presenting relevant evidence is integral to that right. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (stating that “[t]he need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive”). In particular, few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (citations omitted). However, this right is not absolute. The defendant “must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” Ibid. States have broad authority to promulgate rules that exclude evidence so long as they are not “arbitrary” or “disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 56 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987) (internal citations omitted)). Accordingly, the Constitution leaves judges “wide latitude” to exclude evidence that is only “marginally relevant.” Crane, 476 U.S. at 689 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 . Exclusion of evidence only raises constitutional concerns if it has “infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused.” S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 328 F. Supp. 2d 735 - Williams v. Withrow

2. “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mark Smith v. Ernie Moore

3. “Only if an evidentiary ruling is so egregious that it results in a denial of fundamental fairness does it violate due process and thus warrant habeas relief. Generally, state-court evidentiary rulings cannot rise to the level of due process violations unless they offend some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 333 F. Supp. 2d 632 - Hartman v. Bagley