Wharton-El v. Nix’s Empirical Analysis
38 F.3d 372 · 1994
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Duren v. Missouri · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Marshall v. Lonberger · Kuntz v. City of Dayton
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Evidence of a discrepancy on a single venire panel cannot demonstrate systematic exclusion.' " Wharton-El, 38 F.3d at 376 (quoting Singleton v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1395 , 1399 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874, 110 S.Ct. 207, 107 L.Ed.2d 160 (1989)). As we stated in Wharton-El, "the absence of any actual systematic exclusion precludes a finding of prejudice springing from ineffective assistance based on the failure to raise or preserve the issue of systematic exclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phea v. Benson“this under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of [African-Americans] in the jury-selection process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phea v. Benson“'Evidence of a discrepancy on a single venire panel cannot demonstrate systematic exclusion.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phea v. Benson
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.