Martin v. Blackburn’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2000
5 federal appellate · 8 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 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 1303 (§ 4003 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Faretta v. California
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Confrontation Clause does not provide the defendant with any right to pre-trial or in-trial discovery of the state’s evidence. The purpose of the Confrontation Clause is to provide the defendant with the opportunity to challenge the testimony introduced by the state against the accused at trial by means of cross-examination of the de-clarant of the testimony.... The petitioner has not cited, and this court has not discovered anything in the English or American history of the Confrontar tion Clause, or in any decision of the Supreme Court interpreting that clause, which suggests in the slightest that the Confrontation Clause is in any way concerned with discovery. Accepting the petitioner’s argument would transform the Confrontation Clause from a device designed to prevent trial by affidavit into a guarantee of the right to demand trial by affidavit.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Weaver · State v. Froning“"We hold that in a challenge to a state criminal conviction brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254if the settled procedural prerequisites for such a claim have otherwise been satisfiedthe applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Ennis“There is ... no general federal constitutional right to state appellate review of state convictions and capital sentences.... Therefore, there is no general federal constitutional requirement that the State ... afford a [capital] defendant ... any appellate review of his conviction and sentence at all.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.