Keith v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Approximately 8 hours after the shootings, Richard Warren, while recovering from surgery, wrote the name “Kevin” on a piece of paper as the name of his assailant. 2. Later in the day, Warren selected Kevin Keith from a photo array of six individuals. 3. Investigators recovered a total of twenty-four cartridge casings from the crime scene area, which had all been fired from the same gun. 4. On the night of the murders, [Keith] picked up his girlfriend, from work at the entrance to the General Electric plant where another matched casing was found. 5. Nancy Smathers, a resident of the Bucyrus Estates, heard popping noises, looked outside her window on the night of the murders, and observed a large stocky man making his escape, whom she was able to identify six weeks later as Kevin Keith, from a television news story depicting [Keith], 6. The man Smathers identified jumped into a light-colored, medium-sized car, a description consistent with the automobile Kevin Keith was known to have had access. 7. Smathers witnessed a number of events: the car slid into a snow bank; the perpetrator got out to rock the car, but the dome light did not operate when the driver’s door opened; the light for the license plate was out; the perpetrator was able to free the vehicle from the snow bank. 8. At the snow bank where Smathers witnessed the getaway car slide, investigators made a cast of the tire tread and of the indentation in the snow bank made by the car’s front license plate number — “04”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Keith, 3-08-15 (12-1-2008) · 176 Ohio App. 3d 260 - State v. Keith

2. ““Generally, ‘[a]n attorney’s actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy,’ which ‘cannot be the basis’ of an ineffective assistance claim ‘unless counsel’s decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Shaneyfelt v. Commissioner, DOC · 95 So. 3d 26 - Washington v. State

3. “In AEDPA, Congress provided that: (d) an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that 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 concurrence
   e.g. 314 F. App'x 776 - Manley v. Ross Correctional Institution