Bell v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.3d 149 · 2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Parisi v. United States (2008), 107 Conn. App. 66 - Peruccio v. Commissioner of Correction (2008)
10 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Rompilla v. Beard · Sellan v. Kuhlman
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The only evidence connecting Bell to the crime was [the victim’s] testimony. Three friends testified that Bell was elsewhere playing cards. Given the trauma [the victim] endured and the medical treatments he received, [his] memory was highly vulnerable to attack by scientific evidence. Minutes after an encounter in which he stood face-to-face with the assailant for five minutes, [the victim] told police officers that his assailant was a “male black wearing a lemon-colored shirt,” a description that implicitly but undeniably indicates that the assailant was a stranger: one does not fall back on general features (a “male black”) or the color of a shirt (“lemon” yellow) to express the identity of a person known by name or affiliation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential;] ... every effort [must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.... [A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bierenbaum v. Graham
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.