Lawson v. Borg’s Empirical Analysis
60 F.3d 608 · 1995
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Jeffries v. Wood (1997), Davis v. Woodford (2003)
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Rose v. Lundy · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dyer v. Calderon · Payne v. Ingle“(1) whether the extrinsic material was actually received, and if so, how; (2) the length of time it was available to the jury; (3) the extent to which the jury discussed and considered it; (4) whether the material was introduced before a verdict was reached, and if so, at what point in the deliberations it was introduced; and (5) any other matters which may bear on the issue of ... whether the introduction of extrinsic material [substantially and injuriously] affected the verdict.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ojur finding of prejudice is not swayed by the state’s contention that not all of the jury members were exposed to the extrajudicial evidence. The number of jurors affected by the misconduct does not weigh heavily in the prejudice calculus for even a single juror’s improperly influenced vote deprives the defendant of an unprejudiced, unanimous verdict.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.