Morris v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. “One might argue that [Morris’] failure to comply with the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations means that he did not seek a hearing ‘in the manner prescribed by state law.’ Williams, 529 U.S. at 427 , 120 S.Ct. at 1485-86 . But such an argument runs headlong into our holding in Bronshtein, where we observed that the PCRA’s time bar was neither ‘firmly established’ nor ‘regularly followed’ at the time [Morris] filed his second PCRA petition. 404 F.3d at 709-10 . Because of the uncertainty surrounding Pennsylvania’s use of the ‘relaxed-waiver rule’ at that time, it was effectively impossible for [Morris] to fail to comply with Pennsylvania law on statute of limitations grounds when filing his second PCRA petition. In Williams, the Supreme Court explained that a finding of diligence would turn on whether a petitioner ‘made a reasonable attempt’ to pursue his claim ‘in light of the information available at the time.’ 529 U.S. at 435 , 120 S.Ct. at 1490 . With no ‘firmly established and regularly applied rule’ clearly barring [Morris’] lengthy delay, Bronshtein, 404 F.3d at 708 , his belated hearing request was an acceptable attempt to pursue his claim in light of the information available to him at the time of filing. Because the Pennsylvania state courts failed to hold a hearing and rule on [Morris’] conflict-of-interest claim ‘for some reason unrelated to [his] diligence, § 2254(e)(2) [does] not apply and a new evidentiary permitted.’ Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416 , 436 (3d Ci”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lark v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

2. “In Bronshtein, we explained that the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations was not an adequate state bar to federal habeas review of claims defaulted prior to, at the very least, October 20, 1998. [Bronshtein, 404 F.3d] at 709. Before that date, Pennsylvania courts frequently applied a ‘relaxed waiver’ rule in capital cases. Id. In other words, courts refused to enforce procedural rules-such as the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations — in capital cases because of the ‘overwhelming public interest in preventing unconstitutional executions.’ Id. at 708 (quoting Commonwealth v. McKenna, 476 Pa. 428 , 383 A.2d 174 , 180-81 (Pa.1978)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a trio of Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in 1998 and 1999 interred the relaxed waiver doctrine, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Banks, 556 Pa. 1 , 726 A.2d 374 (Pa.1999), we observed in Bronshtein that it was not clear that the rule would be unavailable as of October 20, 1998— the date of Bronshtein’s default. See 404 F.3d at 709-10 . Because the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations ‘was not firmly established and regularly followed’ as of that date, we held it was an inadequate state bar to federal habeas review of Bronshtein’s claims. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lark v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

3. “[E]ven if the factual allegations in the habeas petition are sufficient to make out a prima facie claim for habeas relief, a district court may decline to convene an evidentiary hearing if the factual allegations are 'contravened by the existing record.' "). In considering whether to hold a hearing, we have suggested that district courts "focus on whether a new evidentiary hearing would be meaningful, in that a new hearing would have the potential to advance the petitioner's claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simon v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands