In Re Phil Parker, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Reginald Wilkinson State of Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Janet Yarrow Lois Rathwell-Love Dr. Francisco Leano Roberta Winkle Marla Armstrong Bennie Kelly and Norm Rose · In re Reginald Wilkinson

2. “McFarland was, until almost the very end, unrepresented and appearing completely pro se. It is this fact that provides the fundamental difference between McFarland and this case.... Throughout Stanford’s direct appeal of his conviction, including the United States Supreme Court’s review, the public defender for Jefferson County apparently represented Stanford. Since the adverse decision of the United States Supreme Court on his direct appeal in 1989, the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy and the Capital Litigation Resource Center have represented Stanford. Unlike in the State of Texas, where there were no means to secure publicly financed counsel from the Texas Capital Resource Center, Kentucky provides counsel to indigent capital defendants not only during the actual trial and the direct appeal but also any post-conviction collateral attacks, including federal habeas corpus. See Ky.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31.220 (1993). Kentucky has provided and continues to provide the very type of preapplication legal assistance and representation that Section 848(q)(4)(B) requires. Therefore, the core concern of McFarland, that an uncounselled prisoner would be required to “proceed without counsel in order to obtain counsel and thus would expose him to the substantial risk that his habeas claims never would be heard on the merits” simply does not exist here. McFarland, 512 U.S. at 854-55 , 114 S.Ct. at 2572 . Stanford has been, is, and will be represented by publicly financed, undoubtedly ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 554 F. Supp. 2d 730 - Willoughby v. Simpson