Hayes v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Supreme Court consistently has held that a Confrontation Clause violation occurs when a trial judge prohibits any inquiry into why a witness may be biased. However, when some inquiry is permitted, trial judges retain wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination. No Confrontation Clause violation occurs as long as the jury receives sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Fenenbock v. Director of Corrections · Fenenbock v. Director of Corrections

2. “The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments “guarantee! ] to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, ‘indifferent’ jurors.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). When a trial court is “unable to seat an impartial jury because of prejudicial pretrial publicity or an inflamed community atmosphere[,] ... due process requires that the trial court grant defendant’s motion for a change of venue.” Harris v. Pulley, 885 F.2d 1354, 1361 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726 , 83 S.Ct. 1417 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963)). In this circuit, we have identified “two different types of prejudice in support of a motion to transfer venue: presumed or actual.” United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.Sd 402, 410 (9th Cir.1996). Interference with a defendant’s fair-trial right “is presumed when the record demonstrates that the community where the trial was held was saturated with prejudicial and inflammatory media publicity about the crime.” Harris, 885 F.2d at 1361 . Actual prejudice, on the other hand, exists when voir dire reveals that the jury pool harbors “actual partiality or hostility [against the defendant] that [cannot] be laid aside.” Id. at 1363 . The Supreme Court applied this two-pronged analytical approach in a case it decided at the end of its last term. See Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2907 , 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010) (considering, first, whether pretrial publicity and community hostility established”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 816 F. Supp. 2d 1017 - Sechrest v. Baker · 801 F. Supp. 2d 1049 - Rogers v. McDaniel

3. “cross- the extraction. Stofik did the second extraction, which was successful, and at the time of trial, the employee who had attempted the first extraction no longer worked at Cellebrite. However, Detective Mangione explained that the phone was sent a second time to Cellebrite once police became aware of a Cellebrite software update. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 19 (0) 1947A 41041D examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defendant might wish.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. BROWN (LARRY) v. STATE