Matthews v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.3d 1175 · 2009
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Hooks v. Workman (2012), Byrd v. Workman (2011)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Kotteakos v. United States · Franks v. Delaware
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prosecutor's remarks to the jury can create constitutional error in one of two ways. First, [those remarks] can prejudice “a specific right, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, as to amount to a denial of that right.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). In such a case, we review the harmfulness of the error using Brecht's "substantial and injurious effect” standard. Second, even if the prosecutor's improper remarks do not impact a specific constitutional right, they may still create reversible error if they "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 . The Supreme Court has instructed us that "the appropriate standard for review of such a claim on writ of habeas corpus is 'the narrow one of due process, and not the broad exercise of supervisory power.’ ” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 (quoting Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 642 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is a reasonable probability that one juror would have chosen a sentence other than death.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If you unanimously find that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, the death penalty shall not be imposed unless you also unanimously find that any such aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh the finding of one or more mitigating circumstances. Even if you find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstance, you may impose a sentence of imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Underwood v. Royal
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.