Bintz v. Bertrand’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.3d 859 · 2005
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Hammon v. State (2005), Fulcher v. Motley (2006)
23 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · Ohio v. Roberts
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even where the jury has been exposed to evidence that is not properly before it, a defendant is not automatically entitled to a new trial. A new trial is in order only if the evidence had a prejudicial effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a substantial effect in determining the jury's verdict because of the other evidence presented at trial,”
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.