Mungo v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Assuming that Crawford announced a new rule, the question of its retroactivity turns, for our purposes, on whether the rule is necessary to the fundamental fairness, and improves the accuracy, of criminal proceedings. Teague, 489 U.S. at 311-14 , 109 S. Ct. 1060 . We do not believe that Crawford necessarily improves the overall accuracy of the criminal process. As we see the operation of the Crawford rule, it is likely to improve accuracy in some circumstances and diminish it in others. To the extent that Crawford requires the exclusion of unreliable hearsay that would have been admitted under the prior law, it is likely to improve accuracy. As the Crawford Court noted, courts applying Roberts were required to make `amorphous' determinations whether hearsay statements bore `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,' and inevitably received unreliable evidence on that basis on some occasions. Crawford, 124 S. Ct. at 1370-72 . Further, as Judge Weinstein observed below, not all hearsay statements that fit within firmly established exceptions to the hearsay rule are necessarily reliable. Mungo, 277 F. Supp. 2d at 184-85. Because Crawford bars the admission of testimonial statements that would have been countenanced by the old rules, and because some such evidence is unreliable, Crawford will in those instances improve the accuracy of the process. "At the same time, however, Crawford also precludes admission of highly reliable testimonial out-of-court statements that would h”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Marvin Howard Bockting v. Robert Bayer · Drach v. Bruce

2. “In any case, whether § 2254(d)(1) was intended, or out of prudence should be read, to adopt the Teague exceptions is a question we need not answer because we conclude that the Crawford rule does not qualify as a watershed rule coming within the exception to Teague.”). 14 . The parties have argued this issue under the rubric of Brady. Some of Grossman’s arguments come close to alleging Giglio error,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Grossman v. McDonough

3. “adjudication of the claim ... 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Howard v. Walker