Fields v. Wharrie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 4 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) ... [Assistant State’s Attorney] Wharrie is entitled to absolute immunity for his alleged solicitation of false testimony from Earl Hawkins after Fields’ original trial, as well as for his alleged suppression of its falsity; and (2) ... Fields failed to state a claim against [Assistant State’s Attorney] Kelley with respect to his alleged coercing Randy Langston’s testimony.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitlock v. Brueggemann · Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

2. “[A] defendant’s conviction is not final as a matter of law until he exhausts the direct appeals afforded to him, and, until that exhaustion, he is entitled to the full breadth of due process available. See also Gonzalez v. Thaler, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 641, 645-46, 652-54 , 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (holding that “[f]or petitioners who pursue direct review all the way to [the Supreme Court], the judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review— when this Court affirms a conviction on the merits or denies a petition for certiora-ri [and that] [f]or all other petitioners, the judgment becomes final at the expiration of the time for seeking such review — -when the time for pursuing direct review in this Court, or in state court, expires”); Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 , 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1303 , 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (explaining that “[t]rial procedures are used to initially convict a prisoner; appellate procedures review the validity of that conviction before it becomes final; and collateral review procedures permit challenge to the conviction after it is final”) (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Private E1 KEITH R. HAWKINS

3. “There is a difference between the advocate’s role in evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses as he prepares for trial, on the one hand, and the detective’s role in searching for the clues and corroboration that might give him probable cause to recommend that a suspect be arrested, on the other hand. When a prosecutor performs the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer, it is “neither appropriate nor justifiable that, for the same act, immunity should protect the one and not the other.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beaman v. Souk