Malicoat v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.3d 1241 · 2005
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the “contrary to” clause, we grant relief only if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the [Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application”- clause, relief is provided only if the state court identifies the correct' governing legal principle from the Supreme Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case. Thus we may not issue a habeas writ simply because we conclude in our independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeLozier v. Sirmons“total deprivation of the right to counsel at trial, a biased presiding judge, the systematic exclusion of members of the defendant’s own race from a grand jury, the denial of the right to self-representation at trial, the denial of the right to a public trial, the denial of the right' to have a district judge (rather than a magistrate judge) preside over jury selection, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we may only grant federal habeas relief if the habeas petitioner can establish that the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeLozier v. Sirmons
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.