Brown v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Here, the trial court’s Howard charge did not violate clearly established Federal law. The Howard charge is no more coercive than the Allen charge. As in Allen and Lowenfield , the supplemental charge given here merely encouraged the jurors to consider each other’s views and to ask themselves whether their own views were reasonable under the circumstances. See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 237-38 , 108 S.Ct. 546 . Such a supplemental instruction is permissible because it is not coercive and because it respects the states’s strong interest in “having the jury express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death.” Id. at 238 , 108 S.Ct. 546 (internal quotations omitted). The trial court, in short, did not order the jury to reach a verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 705 F. Supp. 2d 773 - Loza v. Mitchell