Robinson v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.3d 730 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Davis v. Alaska · Kyles v. Whitley · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the undisclosed evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to challenge a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable or who is subject to extensive attack by reason of other evidence, the undisclosed evidence may be cumulative, and hence not material.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The term 'bias' describes 'the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a party.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ray v. Bauman“Given juries' negative predisposition regarding informants, the trial jury would likely have been suspicious of [the informant witness] and cautious about [his] testimony,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ray v. Bauman
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.