Briggs v. Grounds’s Empirical Analysis
682 F.3d 1165 · 2012
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Duren v. Missouri · Victor v. Nebraska · Miller-El v. Dretke
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.
“The dissent seems to conclude that because we cannot independently verify the answers from the questionnaires as they are not in the record, the defense’s characterization is equally, if not more, plausible despite the state court determinations to the contrary. However, “AEDPA imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt,” Felkner v. Jackson, [sic, — U.S.-], 131 S.Ct. 1305 , 1307 [ 179 L.Ed.2d 374 ] (2011) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (overturning the Ninth Circuit). The dissent’s readiness to doubt the state court determination based on the defendant’s characterization of the record does not apply the appropriate level of deference Congress and the United States Supreme Court have required of us.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ayala v. Wong · Ayala v. Wong“it would be anathema to AEDPA if we were to assume that the petitioner’s contentions about the questionnaires are true simply because the record before us does not contain the excused jurors’ questionnaires. The burden to disprove the factual findings rests with Briggs. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1) (requiring “clear and convincing evidence” to rebut “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court”).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ayala v. Wong · Ayala v. Wong“[UJnless the state appellate court was objectively unreasonable in concluding that a trial court’s credibility determination was supported by [the record], we must uphold it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zapien v. Martel
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.