Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 651 F.2d 347 - Huffman v. Wainwright

Huffman v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

651 F.2d 347 · 1981

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Ford v. Strickland (1983), Norris v. United States (1982)

28 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

5601981199020002010decided

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

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Parker v. North Carolina · Rosales-Lopez v. United States · Francis v. Henderson

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

  1. “Huffman was a black man accused of raping a white woman. A mixed-race jury might clearly have a special perception in a mixed race case. His defense was consent. His jury was all white. Although a constitutionally drawn jury may be all white, or all black, depriving Huffman of the chance of having a mixed-race jury would seem to meet the prejudice requirements for relief.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “sufficient to excuse a procedural default in light of the determination to avoid”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]f the constitutional issue is sufficiently grave, even an express waiver by the defendant himself may sometimes be excused. Matters such as the competence of counsel, the procedural context in which the asserted waiver occurred, the character of the constitutional right at stake, and the overall fairness of the entire proceeding, may be more significant than the language of the test the Court purports to apply. I therefore believe the Court has wisely refrained from attempting to give precise content to its “cause”-and-“prejudice” exceptions ....”
    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.