United States v. Webster’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 787 · 2004
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After consideration of all the evidence and information presented in the guilt and punishment phases of trial, the Court hereby issues its factual finding that the defendant Webster is not mentally retarded and that he possesses the requisite mental capacity to understand the death penalty and why it will be imposed on him. As a result, the defendant Webster is not exempt under 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c) from implementation of the death penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“determination [whether to grant a COA] is based on an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.