Broom v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
441 F.3d 392 · 2006
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably 132 S. Ct. 2148 - Parker v. Matthews (2012), Parker v. Matthews (2012)
46 federal appellate · 13 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · Neil v. Biggers · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the likelihood that the remarks of the prosecutor tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally made; and (4) the total strength of the evidence against the defendant.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Durr v. Mitchell · Beuke v. Houk“' "[T]he failure to present additional mitigating evidence that is merely cumulative of that already presented does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether the [prosecutor’s] statements ... were proper, there are several guidelines available. Advocates have an obligation to put forth only proper arguments based on the evidence in the record. Also they must obey the cardinal rule that a prosecutor cannot make statements calculated to incite the passions and prejudices of the jury.”
2 later decisions 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.