Hendrix v. Smith’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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘There is little, if any, difference between our statement in Fahy v. Connecticut [ 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ] about “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction” and requiring the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. We, therefore, do no more than adhere to the meaning of our Fahy case when we hold, as we now do, that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ([Chapman v. California] 368 U.S. at 24 [ 87 S.Ct. at 828 ] . . . .) * * * * * * “ ‘Thus, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967). In this case, we conclude that the “minds of an average jury” would not have found the State’s case significantly less persuasive had the testimony as to Snell’s admissions been excluded. The admission into evidence of these statements, therefore, was at most harmless error.’ [Schneble v. Florida] 405 U.S. at 432 [ 92 S.Ct. at 1059 ].” 639 F.2d at 115 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tamilio v. Fogg

2. “able to declare a belief that (the error) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sales v. Harris

3. “the totality of the proof offered against appellant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sales v. Harris