Diestel v. Hines’s Empirical Analysis
506 F.3d 1249 · 2007
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Slack v. McDaniel · Shannon v. United States · Dixon v. United States · Moore v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If [a] killer's mental illness caused him to believe that he had a warrant from the President or a command from God to kill the victim, he did not believe his deed was `wrong' and the insanity defense is available.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the “contrary to” clause, we grant relief only if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently-than the [Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, relief is provided only if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the Supreme Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case. Thus we may not issue a habeas writ simply because we conclude in our independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the state did not rely on lay witnesses alone. (It called [a forensic psychologist] to give expert guidance to the jury; . [that psychologist] focused on [the defendant's] state of mind at the time of the offense and provided the jury with a framework to use the lay testimony in reaching its conclusion regarding sanity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Eastwood
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.