Jensen v. Romanowski’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.3d 373 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case; (2) whether the testimony was cumulative; (8) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points; (4) the extent of cross examination otherwise permitted; and (5) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the constitutional error had no material effect, the verdict must stand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hendrix v. Palmer“under the 'substantial and injurious effect' standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hendrix v. Palmer
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.