Larson v. Palmateer’s Empirical Analysis
515 F.3d 1057 · 2008
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 47 Cal. 4th 993 - People v. Freeman (2010), Murdoch v. Castro (2010)
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · Lindh v. Murphy · Liteky et al United States · Illinois v. Allen
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hedlund v. Ryan · Hedlund v. Ryan“Although the district court acknowledged that the trial judge made “no formalized finding” as to the necessity of restraints, it nonetheless rejected Larson’s due process claim, holding that the trial court was presented with security concerns that necessitated the use of restraints. Specifically, the district court suggested that the security leg brace may have been justified because Larson had a proclivity for absconding, called prisoners as witnesses and was on trial for a particularly vicious retaliation murder against family members. Although any of these reasons may have provided an adequate basis for imposing security restraints, the Supreme Court in Deck specifically rejected such posthoc rationales. See [Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 634-35 , 125 S.Ct. 2007 , 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005) ] (noting that one suggested justification for shackling the defendant “founders on the record’s failure to indicate that the trial judge saw the matter as one calling for discretion,” because “[t]he record contains no formal or informal findings”) ... We therefore agree with Larson that his due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to make a finding on the record justifying the necessity of physical restraints, and that the absence of such a finding cannot be cured by the reviewing court’s after-the-fact justifications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony to that of earlier witnesses.”
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.