Furr v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis
440 F.3d 34 · 2006
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · Marks v. United States · Alexander v. Sandoval
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he [ Street ] Court did not purport to prescribe a mandatory checklist of factors to be considered in every case. Rather, it noted, absent other circumstances, it is sufficient that the codefendant statement is nonhearsay - viz., not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and provided the court gives a limiting instruction to that effect. ... Thus the determination as whether the general rule of admissibility in Street applies is assessed case by case, based upon the presence of whatever special circumstances would create an unreasonable risk that the jury disregarded their instructions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As the [ Street ] Court issued a majority decision endorsed by six justices, however, and not merely a plurality opinion, the concurrence cannot be considered a viable Court holding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.