Jones v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.3d 225 · 2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any argument that Jones had a right to be present during the discussion of the consequences * of his own violent and disruptive behavior would be circular, and would imply that a court could never exclude a defendant under Allen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cardoza v. Rock
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.