603 F. Supp. 2d 960 - Matthews v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
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 Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Coleman v. Thompson
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Vjery quickly after making these statements the prosecutor backpedaled and stated that he was not trying to imply that either counsel or Dr. Chutkow was unethical or had fabricated testimony. In fact, the prosecutor stated that Dr. Chutkow was telling the jury the truth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matthews v. Parker“What is required is that at the conclusion of the evidence, a reasonable jury be able to find beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of EED.... Substantial evidence in this case allowed reasonable jurors to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matthews v. Parker
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.