Slagle v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis
457 F.3d 501 · 2006
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Getsy v. Mitchell (2007), State v. Froman (Slip Opinion) (2020)
29 federal appellate · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Berger v. United States · United States v. Young
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, this court determines whether the prosecution’s conduct or remarks were improper. If the answer is affirmative, then the court considers four factors to decide whether the improper acts were sufficiently flagrant to warrant reversal: (1) whether the evidence against the defendant was strong, (2) whether the conduct of the prosecution tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (3) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; and (4) whether the remarks were made deliberately or accidentally.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state adjudication: (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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“• During voir dire, one of the prosecutors told a prospective juror, “This is a case where, obviously, a firearm was discharged. And from what the defense has told us so far, it seems like one of the key issues that you’re going to be — I mean, there is no doubt there is a dead person. He was alive before he had contact with Angelo Fears. And after the boom, he is not alive anymore. So it appears that one of the major issues that you will be deciding here, apart from the hot death-penalty issues .... ” (emphasis added). An objection was sustained, and the prosecutor rephrased the statement. A curative instruction was neither requested nor given. Fears claims that the comment placed upon him a burden of proving his innocence via a defense of accident. • A prosecutor, when articulating his basic theory of the case, stated that Fears and Grant were going to the scene of the crime, “planning to rob everybody involved regardless of the cost, regardless of what they had to do. They were going to rob people. If they had to kill somebody they were going to do it.” The trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection, and though Fears argued to the Ohio Supreme Court that a curative instruction should have been given, the record does not reflect a request for such an instruction. • Also during voir dire, that same prosecutor asked a prospective juror whether it would be possible to ascertain Fears’s intent “without having them help us figure that out?” The court sustained an objectio”
1 later decision 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.