Tomlin v. McKune’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Estelle v. McGuire · Benton v. Maryland · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Stripped to its essentials, Tomlin’s argument is as follows: Existing Kansas law does not permit a partial verdict. That law is based, at least in part, upon the language in a California case, Doolittle . That language in Doolittle was disavowed in a later opinion by the California Supreme Court in Stone . My lawyer moved for a mistrial before it was known that the jury apparently had resolved the rape charge in my favor. However, in the short period between the time my lawyer became aware of the second jury note and the court’s declaration of a mistrial, he should have realized that withdrawing my mistrial motion, opposing the State’s mistrial motion, and asking for a partial verdict on the rape charge would not have been a futility since the language in Doolittle relied upon by the Kansas Supreme Court in McKay was disavowed by the California Supreme Court in Stone ; and the Kansas Supreme Court would, in all probability, reverse its ruling in McKay and sanction a partial verdict in my favor on the rape charge. It would be laudable if trial counsel, when faced with an issue such as this, could, within the short time allotted, engage in the analysis of Kansas and California law that Tomlin suggests. In fact, it would be not only laudable but quite extraordinary. The Sixth Amendment does not set the bar for trial counsel’s performance so high.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Tomlin v. McKune“We are hung 3 for Guilty to Count 1 3 for Not Guilty to Count 1 or 2 due to reasonable doubt 6 for Guilty to Lesser Charge of Count 1 and Guilty to Count 2 We reviewed the facts and your instructions. We have discussed how to “compromise” but we all feel very strongly that we must vote what we believe. Also we feel strongly about our Duty to reach a decision for this Trial. To help us break our deadlocks — what can you say or do for us? We want to come to a decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tomlin v. McKune
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.