Sibley v. Culliver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... a petitioner may attempt to demonstrate that, whether or not he is guilty of the capital offense, he is “innocent” of the death penalty because none of the aggravating factors legally necessary for invocation of the death penalty applied. The Supreme Court has emphasized that, in making this determination, a court may not look to new evidence concerning mitigating factors; once it has satisfied itself that the minimum state law requirements concerning the presence of aggravating factors have been satisfied, its review is complete. Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 347 , 112 S.Ct. 2514, 2524 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992) (“[T]he ‘actual innocence’ requirement must focus on those elements that render a defendant eligible for the death penalty, and not on additional mitigating evidence that was prevented from being introduced as a result of a claimed constitutional error.”). To make this showing, a petitioner “must show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner eligible for the death penalty.” Id., 505 U.S. at 336 , 112 S.Ct. at 2517. Thus, a petitioner challenging his underlying conviction faces a lower burden of proof than a petitioner challenging the existence of aggravating circumstances rendering him death-eligible.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKay v. United States · 880 F. Supp. 2d 1162 - Kuenzel v. Allen

2. “(2) If the [petitioner] has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the [petitioner] shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law ...; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wolfe v. Johnson

3. “must be 'undermined' before he is entitled to a hearing 'for the purpose of developing the evidence needed to pass his procedurally defaulted habeas claims through the actual innocence gateway.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. BERRY (DEMARLO) VS. STATE