Boyd v. Newland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 6 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A reviewing court cannot examine the “totality of the relevant facts” and “all relevant circumstances,” Batson, 476 U.S. at 94 [ 106 S.Ct. 1712 ], surrounding a prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a minority potential juror without an entire voir dire transcript. A transcript of the complete voir dire, as distinct from a partial transcript up to the time of the Batson motion, is proper because comparative juror analysis is appropriate both at the time of the Batson motion and in light of all subsequent voir dire testimony.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ayala v. Wong · Ayala v. Wong

2. “Although we are not suggesting that Tighe was incorrectly decided, as some of these varying interpretations of Ap-prendi suggest, the opinion does not represent clearly established federal law ‘as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). In general, Ninth Circuit precedent remains persuasive authority in determining what is clearly established federal law. But, in the face of authority that is directly contrary to Tighe , and in the absence of explicit direction from the Supreme Court, we cannot hold that the California courts’ use of Petitioner’s juvenile adjudication as a sentencing enhancement was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Kessee v. Mendoza-Powers · United States v. Deandrade

3. “Petitioner filed three requests to supplement the record to include the entire voir dire transcript. The California Court of Appeal granted Petitioner’s requests in part and required that he be provided the voir dire of the excused African-American juror plus his counsel’s argument under Batson. But the court of appeal denied Petitioner’s requests for the entire voir dire transcript because it concluded that he did not comply with a California local rule that requires a defendant to establish with some certainty how5 the requested materials may be useful on appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McDaniels v. Kirkland