Stewart v. Erwin’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.3d 488 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Gray v. Moore (2008), State v. Liskany (2011)
8 federal appellate · 9 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 Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · United States v. Tucker · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no clearly established federal constitutional right to full disclosure of all information used by a trial judge in determining a defendant's sentence,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . . Because the federal court record does not contain any of the pertinent materials reviewed by the Ohio Court of Appeals in making its findings i.e., the victim impact statements, the psychological evaluations, and the PSI neither we nor the court below can possibly determine whether the state court's findings were "unreasonable" in light of a missing evidentiary record. Instead, we are left with only the parties' competing assertions that the trial court's sentencing determination was or was not based in part on information that was uniquely culled from the victim impact statements. * * * It is difficult to see, under the present record, how a court could declare with any degree of confidence that any due process violation was harmless. As noted, the record does indicate with sufficient clarity that the state trial court considered the victim impact statements in determining [petitioner's] sentence. What it does not reveal, however, is whether the Ohio Court of Appeals was correct in concluding and, in turn, whether the district court properly accepted as the factual predicate for its determination of harmless error that "the facts ultimately relied upon by the trial court in sentencing [petitioner] were otherwise reflected in the psychological evaluations and the PSI." . . . As explained, the reasonableness of this finding is beyond the power of this court to ascertain, where the evidence upon which it rests is missing from the federal court record. If, in fac”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“facts ultimately relied upon by the trial court in sentencing [petitioner] were otherwise reflected in the psychological evaluations and the PSI which the defense had received,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.