Jackson v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “[E]ven if the jury disbelieved [the false testimony] entirely ... there still is no 'reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.'”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamilton v. Ayers · Sivak v. Hardison

2. “[W]e disagree with the State’s analysis. Napue applies whenever a prosecution “ ‘knew or should have known that the testimony was false.’ ” Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 984 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2003)).... [T]he prosecutor has a clear Brady obligation to investigate whether the police have evidence favorable to the defendant. [Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ] (“[A]ny argument for excusing a prosecutor from disclosing what he does not happen to know about boils down to a plea to substitute the police for the prosecutor, and even for the courts themselves, as the final arbiters of the government’s obligation to ensure fair trials.”); Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (“[Wjhether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor.”). If the prosecutor has a duty to investigate and disclose favorable evidence known only to the police, he “should know” when a witness testifies falsely about such evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 651 F. Supp. 2d 1097 - Lisker v. Knowles

3. “We review the district court’s decision to grant habeas relief de novo. We review de novo questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, whether decided by the district court or the state courts. The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. We therefore accept its findings ‘absent a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ State court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness, subject to eight exceptions enumerated in the previous version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sivak v. Hardison