Charles Freeman v. Superintendent Fayette SCI’s Empirical Analysis
2023
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Richardson v. Marsh
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.
“the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession with a proper limiting instruction when . . . the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant's name, but any reference to his or her existence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the juror hears the judge's instruction not to consider the confession as evidence against [the defendant],”
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.