Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 405 F.2d 110 - George Albert Curry v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden

George Albert Curry v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden’s Empirical Analysis

405 F.2d 110 · 1969

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
4
states following
October 1993
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1993 · most notably Blake v. Kemp (1985), Neuschafer v. Whitley (1988)

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

1401969197019801990decided

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

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Townsend v. Sain · Jackson v. Denno

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

  1. “it is nonetheless abundantly clear from the record of the trial that counsel wanted the jury to hear the statements, that he relied on them heavily as supporting the only real defense that he had, and that his reliance was successful. It would be a perversion of the judicial process to now give [the defendant] the best of two worlds upon the basis of such an alleged statement by his counsel. Cf. Nelson v. California, 346 F.2d [73,] 81 [(9th Cir. 1965)]; Kuhl v. United States, 370 F.2d [20,] 27 [(9th Cir. 1966)]. A contrary result would enable counsel for a defendant to try one strategy by deliberately using, for his client's benefit, evidence that could be claimed to be constitutionally tainted and then, if not satisfied with the result, to get a second trial by claiming that the constitutional taint requires a reversal in spite of his tactical decision. We do not think that the California courts favor such a result; we do not think that this court should favor it either.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “counsel [here with appellant's concurrence] deliberately, as a matter of trial strategy, which proved to be successful, waived those grounds.”
    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.