Roger Lee McQueen v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.2d 207 · 1974
Citation profile
160 federal appellate · 5 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 287 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably United States v. Cronic (1984), State v. Lytle (1976)
160 federal appellate · 5 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Townsend v. Sain
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 287 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Stringent as the “mockery of justice” standard may seem, we have never intended it to be used as a shibboleth to avoid a searching evaluation of possible constitutional violations; nor has it been so used in this circuit. It was not intended that the “mockery of justice” standard be taken literally, but rather that it be employed as an embodiment of the principle that a petitioner must shoulder a heavy burden in proving unfairness.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the petitioner must shoulder an initial burden of showing the existence of admissible evidence which could have been uncovered by reasonable investigation and which would have proved helpful to the defendant either on cross-examination or in his case-in-chief at the original trial. Once this showing is made, a new trial is warranted unless the court is able to declare a belief that the admission of such evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Evaluation of a habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is a two-step process: first, determining,... whether there has been a failure to perform some duty, as essential as the duty of investigation, owed by a defense attorney to his client; and second, determining,... whether that failure prejudiced his defense." 498 F.2d 207 at 218 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McDonald v. Hutto · Thomas v. State
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.