376 F. Supp. 2d 306 - Brisco v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Q. After giving the shorts to the defendant in the driveway of 51 Mills Pond Road, did you go back into the house? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did you do at that time? A. I had [Kemper] look out the window of the house to see if she would recognize anyone. Q. When you went back into the house, after giving the defendant the shorts from your car, was [Kemper] in the back of the house or the front? A. Yes, she was. I went to the rear of the house and brought her to the front room. Q. And what did you say to her when you brought her to the front room? A. I asked her if she recognized anyone standing outside. Q. Do you remember if [Kemper] said anything when she viewed the defendant at this time? A. Yes, she looked at the subject standing outside, and she stated that this is the person that she saw leaving the house, and that he was the same height, color hair, build, and she also identified the shorts that he was holding. Q. And she identified those shorts that he was holding as what? A. As the shorts that she saw the individual wearing that was inside her house when the burglary occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brisco v. Ercole

2. “Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner on a claim that was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court only if it concludes that 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We must presume the state court’s factual findings to be correct and may overturn those findings only if the petitioner offers “clear and convincing evidence” of their incorrectness. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brisco v. Ercole

3. “[The] record evidence supports the conclusion that the procedures used were reasonable under the circumstances. The showup took place at the scene of the crime, within an hour of the commission of the crime, and in the context of a continuous, ongoing investigation. Record evidence also supports the conclusion that the showup identification was not unduly suggestive. The victim stated that defendant was the person whom she had seen leaving her house, and initially and independently identified him relying on his height, hair color, and build. In these circumstances, the presence of defendant’s maroon shorts, admittedly his own, did not, as a matter of law, negate the reasonableness of the police action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Brisco v. Ercole