Bey v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Bey’s second claim is that, even though the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the admission of the ‘other acts’ evidence as a matter of state evidentiary law, that particular evidence was so prejudicial that its admission nonetheless rendered his entire trial fundamentally unfair, which denied him due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This is Bey’s new construction of his proposed habeas issue and by framing it as a constitutional violation he has at least asserted a cognizable habeas claim ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 767 F. Supp. 2d 833 - Horton v. Warden, Trumbull County Correctional Institution · 655 F. Supp. 2d 808 - Priest v. Hudson

2. “Beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Due Process Clause has limited operation. We, therefore, have defined the category of infractions that violate “fundamental fairness” very narrowly. As we observed in [United States v.] Lovasco, [ 431 U.S. 783 (1977) ][,] [j]udges are not free, in defining “due process,” to impose on law enforcement officials their personal and private notions of fairness and to disregard the limits that bind judges in them judicial function. They are to determine only whether the action complained of violates those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions, and which define the community’s sense of fair play and decency.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanborn v. Parker

3. “[A]ll evidence tending to prove guilt is prejudicial to a criminal defendant. If it were otherwise, the State would not produce it as evidence and the court would not admit it as relevant. The credible point ... is that nothing in the record indicates that the prejudice was unfair. Defense counsel was fully apprised, well prior to trial, that this evidence would be introduced; counsel had a full and fair opportunity to challenge this evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present rebuttal evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowen v. Haney