Foust v. Houk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 5 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[I]n order to establish prejudice, the new evidence that a habeas petitioner presents must differ in a substantial way-in strength and subject matter-from the evidence actually presented at sentencing.' Hill v. Mitchell , 400 F.3d 308 , 319 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 546 U.S. 1039 , 126 S.Ct. 744 , 163 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005). In other cases, we have found prejudice because the new mitigating evidence is 'different from and much stronger than the evidence presented on direct appeal,' 'much more extensive, powerful, and corroborated,' and 'sufficiently different and weighty.' Goodwin v. Johnson , 632 F.3d 301 , 328, 331 (6th Cir. 2011). We have also based our assessment on 'the volume and compelling nature of th[e new] evidence.' Morales v. Mitchell , 507 F.3d 916 , 935 (6th Cir. 2007). If the testimony 'would have added nothing of value,' then its absence was not prejudicial. [ Bobby v.] Van Hook , [ 558 U.S. 4 , 12,] 130 S.Ct. at 19 [ (2009) ]. In short, 'cumulative mitigation evidence' will not suffice. Landrum v. Mitchell , 625 F.3d 905 , 930 (6th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 4, 2011) (10-9911).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Caudill v. Conover · Brownfield v. State

2. “the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background ... may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lang v. Bobby

3. “then its absence was not prejudicial. [ Bobby v.] Van Hook , [ 558 U.S. 4 , 12,] 130 S.Ct. [13,] 19, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 [ (2009) ]. In short,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Saunders v. State