Larry K. Barnard v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis
514 F.2d 744 · 1975
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably 479 So. 2d 76 - Ex Parte Grayson (1985), United States v. Barrett (1983)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 35 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
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Holder v. United States · Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong · Hernandez v. Beto
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Fundamental fairness is violated when a criminal defendant on trial for his liberty is denied the opportunity to have an expert of his choosing, bound by appropriate safeguards imposed by the Court, examine a piece of critical evidence whose nature is subject to varying expert opinion.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Prior to the trial he moved for permission of the Court to allow inspection of the murder weapon and bullet by a ballistics expert of his own choosing. That this was not a frivolous request is evident since one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against Barnard was the identification of the murder bullet as having been fired by a .22 Ruger pistol traced to his possession. Seventy-five percent of this slug was destroyed and the identification was made on the remaining 25%. This fact alone raises the possibility that had Barnard been assisted by a ballistics expert of his own he may have been able to shake the identification testimony of the State's experts."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.