Franklin v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis
695 F.3d 439 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Lindh v. Murphy
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]vidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but ... even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Bogan“[T]he trial court's failure to hold a midtrial competency hearing sua sponte was not a 'decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Bogan“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Genovese
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.