Baker v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * x Glasser does not hold that the mere fact that a single attorney is appointed to represent two de fendants in a joint criminal trial is ipso facto evidence of lack of effective counsel. Some prejudice must be shown by one who would successfully object. But, since we hold that Bruton’s [Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968)] post-trial retroactive impact on the case at bar created a definite conflict between the interests of the joint defendants at the instant that the prosecution introduced its evidence of Damron’s implication of Baker, Baker did not have to produce any specific proof of prejudice resulting from this conflict because prejudice is self-evident. If counsel had not placed Damron [Baker’s co-defendant] on the witness stand, then he probably could have voided the trial as to Baker for in just such a situation Bruton says that the error in admitting the confession could not be cured as to Baker even by direct instructions to the jury to disregard it as to Baker’s case. This probability became a certainty in this case because we are unable to say that the other, valid evidence of Baker’s guilt, substantial as it was, was so overwhelming that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the confessory implication was harmless. When a defense counsel has it within his power to void a proceeding against his client and, because of his representation of another is not completely free to exercise this power, he most assuredly has a directly c”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 Wash. App. 161 - State v. Alexis · Holland v. Henderson

2. “As the Florida Court of Appeals held, Baker was not denied the right to be confronted with any witness against him. In James v. United States, 416 F.2d 467 (5th Cir.1969) this court upheld the conviction of a non-confessing joint defendant over a Bruton objection in a joint trial where the confessing defendant took the stand and was subject to cross-examination... . Baker's right under the Sixth Amendment to be confronted with the witnesses against him was in no way denied in the case at bar because Damron took the stand and made himself subject to cross-examination by Baker.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 381 So. 2d 683 - Hall v. State

3. “[T]he most skillful cross-examiner could not have produced a better result for Baker than Damron's testimony that his entire confession had never been made and that neither he nor Baker robbed Infinger.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 381 So. 2d 683 - Hall v. State