Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 687 F.3d 46 - Epps v. Poole

Epps v. Poole’s Empirical Analysis

687 F.3d 46 · 2012

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
August 2017
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Clay v. United States · People v. Register · Jones v. Vacco

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

  1. “Under the so-called “Register regime,” in order to convict a defendant on a charge of depraved-indifference murder, a jury was required to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant “(1) recklessly engaged in conduct (2) which created a grave risk of death to another person (3) thereby causing the death of another person (4) under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life.” Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y.3d 588, 602 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 (2006) (summarizing the law as of June 28, 2001). The mens rea for depraved-indifference murder was recklessness, and the statutory phrase “ ‘under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life’ defined the factual setting, viewed objectively, in which the risk-creating conduct occurred.” Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in.-a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    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.