Wogenstahl v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “applies] a “two-part test to determine whether the state court reasonably applied the federal standard in holding that prosecutorial misconduct did not render [the petitioner’s] trial fundamentally unfair.” Irick v. Bell, 565 F.3d 315, 324 (6th Cir.2009). [The Court] first determine[s] whether the prosecution’s conduct was improper. Id. Second, [the Court] determine^] whether that improper conduct was flagrant by considering four factors: “(1) whether the evidence against the defendant was strong; (2) whether the conduct of the prosecution tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (3) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; and (4) whether the remarks were made deliberately or accidentally.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 907 F. Supp. 2d 878 - Blackston v. Rapelje · 902 F. Supp. 2d 1006 - Drain v. Woods

2. “had good cause for failing to raise the Brady issue prior to 2003, because the new information about [a prosecution witness's prior arrest and adjudication of delinquency] was not disclosed until then”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kell v. Benzon