Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 671 F.3d 708 - Schad v. Ryan

Schad v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

671 F.3d 708 · 2009

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 2021
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Kyles v. Whitley · Lockett v. Ohio

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

  1. “Just as the State may not by statute preclude the sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, neither may the sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence .... The sentencer, and the Court of Criminal Appeals on review, may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. But they may not give it no weight by excluding such evidence from their consideration.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “By the start of federal habeas proceedings in 1998, Schad’s counsel had obtained a great deal more information about his early and abusive childhood experiences. Schad asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of trial when his attorney, Shaw, failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence regarding Schad’s troubled childhood, and instead relied on the brief discussion of Schad’s childhood contained in the psychiatrist’s testimony and in the presentence report. During proceedings before the district court, Schad sought an evidentiary hearing in order to present a significant amount of evidence regarding his abusive childhood, which he contends his sentencing counsel should have presented at the sentencing hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel ... [did not] seek a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation to assess the negative effects of that abuse. [Id. at 720.] The expert [whose affidavit counsel attached] recommended that a comprehensive psychological evaluation be performed. ... [Id. at 721.] Schad sought to present mitigating evidence ..., including extensive mental health records of [family members], as well as several declarations discussing Schad’s childhood and its effect on his mental health. The first declaration ... provided an extremely detailed discussion of the psychological impact of Schad’s abusive childhood. [Id. at 721-22 (emphasis added).]”
    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.