Owens v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The ability of a habeas petitioner to introduce new evidence into the record depends on the interplay between two provisions: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2) and Habeas Corpus Rule 7. Section 2254(e)(2) addresses the requirements to obtain an evidentiary hearing. It provides: “If the applicant 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 applicant shows ... a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” Habeas Rule 7 preceded the enactment of this provision and speaks to when a district court may expand the record. It provides that the district “judge may direct that the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the petition.” ... When expansion of the record is used to achieve the same end as an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner ought to be subject to the same constraints that would be imposed if he had sought an evidentiary hearing .... Thus, to introduce ... new affidavits, [the petitioner] must satisfy the standards of § 2254(e)(2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ward v. Hall

2. “If the applicant 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 applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— ... (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 fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dalton v. Battaglia

3. “as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Horton v. Litscher