565 F. Supp. 2d 440 - McKithen v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (Innocence Protection Act of 2004) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 753 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Strickland v. Washington · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Brady v. State of Maryland · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the defendant’s motion requests the performance of a forensic DNA test on specified evidence, and upon the court’s determination that any evidence containing deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) was secured in connection with the trial resulting in the judgment, the court shall grant the application for forensic DNA testing of such evidence upon its determination that if a DNA test had been conducted on such evidence, and if the results had been admitted in the trial resulting in the judgment, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. McKithen v. Brown“[T]o say that the Constitution gives an inmate a liberty interest in release if she is innocent, for the purposes of procedural due process, is to say that an inmate who is innocent is entitled, by the Constitution to be released.... That possibility ... was conspicuously left unresolved in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 [ 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 ] (1993), where the Supreme Court assumed “for the sake of argument” that “in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. McKithen v. Brown
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.