Shaw v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 128 · 1993
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Billiot v. Puckett (1998), Larry Lee Bledsue v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (1999)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Murray v. Carrier
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“because of the defendant's violation of state procedural requirements”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Requiring a criminal defendant to examine his accuser during his case-in-chief rather than mandating that the prosecution call the witness during its case-in-chief places the defendant in a no-win situation. Lowery v. Collins, 988 F.2d 1364, 1369-70 (5th Cir. 1993)[, adhered to on denial of reh’g, 996 F.2d 770 ]. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the Confrontation Clause, for it requires the criminal defendant to either risk inflaming the jury by cross-examining the child-complainant or to avoid that risk by forgoing his Sixth Amendment rights to confront and cross-examine his accuser. Id. at 1369-1370.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his Court is revolted by violence— especially sex-related violence — against children. However, we are required to be ever vigilant in ensuring that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of defendants in habeas corpus cases are not violated in substantial and injurious ways. All parties agree that Robert Shaw’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated here. The record before us reveals that that violation was not a harmless one.”
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.