Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 F.3d 787 - Brown v. Farwell

Brown v. Farwell’s Empirical Analysis

525 F.3d 787 · 2008

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Sumner v. Mata · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To illustrate, suppose the ... evidence establishes that there is a one in 10,000 chance of a random match. The jury might equate this likelihood with source probability by believing that there is a one in 10,000 chance that the evidentiary sample did not come from the defendant. This equation of random match probability with source probability is known as the prosecutor's fallacy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “U.S. v. Shonubi, 895 F.Supp. 460, 516 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 103 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.1997); see also U.S. v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1157 (9th Cir.1994) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “presents statistical evidence to suggest that the [DNA] evidence indicates the likelihood of the defendant's guilt rather than the odds of the evidence having been found in a randomly selected sample.”
    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.