Howard J. Conte v. Harold J. Cardwell, Warden Ohio State Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 698 · 1973
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McGautha v. California · Brown v. United States · Williams v. United States · Bradley v. United States · United States v. Lee
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That the joinder of two [offenses] in one trial may have confronted the petitioner with an election as to whether he should testify or exercise his right to refrain from testifying does not constitute a constitutionally impermissible infringement of his right to refrain from self-incrimination.”) 6 . The pro se habeas petition states as the second ground for relief that “[p]etitioner's 5th, 6th and 14th Amends., rights [sic] were violated by the use of inadmissible evidence at trial.” Habeas Petition at 5. In support of this claim, the petition alleges that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holmes v. Scully
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.