Austin v. Swenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “Absent a willful withholding of evidence by the defendant in the state proceeding, the requirement of exhaustion does not preclude the District Court from entertaining the issue previously raised in state court and deciding the habeas claim upon the basis of new evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Ex Rel. Merritt v. Hicks · Vincent James Landano v. John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, (East Jersey State Prison), Peter Perretti, (Attorney General, State of New Jersey), Leslie Fay Schwartz, (Deputy Attorney General), the Office of the Hudson County Prosecutor, Kearney Police Department, Newark Police Department, Jersey City Police Department and Perth Amboy Police Department, No. 89-5504, Honorable H. Lee Sarokin, U.S. District Court Judge, Nominal Vincent James Landano v. John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, Rahway State Prison, and Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. Vincent James Landano v. John J. Rafferty, Superintendent (East Jersey State Prison), Peter Perretti, (Attorney General, State of New Jersey), Leslie Fay Schwartz, (Deputy Attorney General), the Office of the Hudson County Prosecutor, Kearney Police Department, Newark Police Department, Jersey City Police Department and Perth Amboy Police Department. Appeal of John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, East Jersey State Prison, and Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, in Nos. 89-5625 and 89-5638

2. “A due respect for comity does not require that federal proceedings be halted each time the state produces additional evidence potentially favorable to the petitioner.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Ex Rel. Merritt v. Hicks · Vincent James Landano v. John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, (East Jersey State Prison), Peter Perretti, (Attorney General, State of New Jersey), Leslie Fay Schwartz, (Deputy Attorney General), the Office of the Hudson County Prosecutor, Kearney Police Department, Newark Police Department, Jersey City Police Department and Perth Amboy Police Department, No. 89-5504, Honorable H. Lee Sarokin, U.S. District Court Judge, Nominal Vincent James Landano v. John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, Rahway State Prison, and Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. Vincent James Landano v. John J. Rafferty, Superintendent (East Jersey State Prison), Peter Perretti, (Attorney General, State of New Jersey), Leslie Fay Schwartz, (Deputy Attorney General), the Office of the Hudson County Prosecutor, Kearney Police Department, Newark Police Department, Jersey City Police Department and Perth Amboy Police Department. Appeal of John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, East Jersey State Prison, and Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, in Nos. 89-5625 and 89-5638

3. “Austin was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Louis on a charge of assault with intent to kill. He was sentenced to a term of 25 years imprisonment. Upon appeal, his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Missouri. State v. Austin, 496 S.W.2d 799 (Mo.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1044 , 94 S.Ct. 549 , 38 L.Ed.2d 336 (1973). The facts at trial and the issues on appeal centered upon the identification of the defendant by the victim, a police officer, who was shot in the head by a passenger at the rear of an automobile the officer was investigating. At trial, the defendant attempted to obtain access to police reports by means of a subpoena. The trial judge refused to permit the defendant to examine the reports. A challenge to that ruling on appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. State v. Austin, supra, 496 S.W.2d at 804-05 . The same contention was asserted in the District Court in petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The District Court ordered an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, evidence was introduced that certain police reports contained undisclosed reports of a statement by one Leroy Harvey that he was in the company of one Vernell Thomas and one Perry Pitchford when one of them shot the police officer. The presence of such statement, along with other material in the report casting doubt upon the identification of the defendant by the victim, raised significant Brady issues which are ripe for determination. (Footnotes omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Austin v. Wyrick