Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 512 F.2d 88 - Gary Maness v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

Gary Maness v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections’s Empirical Analysis

512 F.2d 88 · 1975

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
7
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably State v. DeFreitas (1980), State v. Cavallo (1982)

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

15019751980199020002010decided

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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas · Dutton v. Evans · United States v. Freeman · United States v. Prince

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

  1. ““Chambers was convicted of murdering a policeman who was killed in the aftermath of a barroom brawl involving a sizeable crowd. After Chambers’ arrest, another man, Gable McDonald, made a confession to police which he later repudiated. At Chambers’ trial, there was little hard evidence that Chambers had shot the officer, and part of Chambers’ defense was to show that it was in fact McDonald who had committed the crime. Since the state did not call McDonald, Chambers had to call him as his own witness. He introduced McDonald’s written confession, but on cross-examination by the state, McDonald repudiated it as having merely been part of a scheme initiated by one Stokes to get Chambers out of jail, whereupon they would all share in the proceeds of a lawsuit Chambers would bring against the city. Since McDonald had been called by the defense, he could not be cross-examined by Chambers’ attorney under the Mississippi voucher rule .... Furthermore, Chambers offered three different witnesses who would have testified that McDonald had admitted that it was he, not Chambers, who shot the officer. None of these three out-of-court confessions was allowed into evidence under the Mississippi hearsay rule which does not recognize admissions against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay exclusion. Thus the combined effect of the Mississippi hearsay and voucher rules prevented Chambers from introducing testimony which strongly implicated McDonald, rather than Chambers, as the guilty ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “persuasive assurances of trustworthiness.”
    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.