DuBose v. Lefevre’s Empirical Analysis
619 F.2d 973 · 1980
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Satchwell (1998), State v. Ouellette (2010)
11 federal appellate · 7 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Giglio v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Mooney v. Holohan · Dix v. Georgia
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that the promise may not have taken a specific form did not allow the prosecution to avoid disclosing to the jury the fair import of its understanding with the witness when the question arose during cross-examination and redirect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the present case, when [the prosecutor] asked the witness, “Have I or any other Assistant District Attorney or anyone offered you any kind of deal or any kind of promise or anything in regard to your testimony today?” the truthful answer (as the prosecutor knew) was ‘Tes.” The witness falsely testified “No.” The prosecution cannot, by keeping its promises of consideration to a witness general in language or tone, escape the fact that it gives the witness reason to believe that his or her testimony will lead to favorable treatment by the State. Unquestionably agreements in general terms to reward testimony by consideration create an incentive on the witness’ part to testify favorably to the State and the existence of such an understanding is important for purposes of impeachment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Williams“[t]he [s]tate's attempt to reconcile its evidence at [the petitioner's] trial that it had not offered [the witness] any kind of deal or any kind of promise or anything in exchange for her testimony with its repeated flat statements at the [the witness'] plea hearing that it made an agreement ... long before the murder trial started [to recommend] acceptance of the misdemeanor plea strains credulity almost to the breaking point.”
1 later decision 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.