Bishop v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 1150 · 1983
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Osie (Slip Opinion) (2014), United States v. Mastroianni (1984)
10 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Townsend v. Sain · Harris v. New York · Sumner v. Mata · Fahy v. Connecticut
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since the confidential information was used in this case for the benefit of the prosecution and to the detriment of the defendant, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the communication of such information, without more, may sufficiently establish prejudice to support a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation. ❖ * * The State argues that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be used for impeachment purposes and that the same rule should apply to confidential communications between attorney and client. See United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). The situations are not analogous. Havens and Hards placed limits on the exclusionary rule by permitting illegally seized evidence to be used for impeachment. The use of the evidence in those cases did not implicate a separate and additional constitutional right. Only the prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures was involved. However, when the prosecution gets evidence before the jury which is based on confidential communications between the defendant his attorney it also impinges on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In this case we are not dealing with the scope of the judge-made exclusionary rule which is a remedy for a constitutional violation. Our concern is with a constitutional right which is at the heart of our adversary system of criminal justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial judge declined to allow the State to admit the document into evidence under direct examination but subsequently allowed its use for cross-examination of the defendant. We find no fault with that judgment. It is conceded that the authorities had the right to search the cell after the attempted escape came to their attention. Certainly they had a right to examine whatever may have been found there. There was no indication in the paper writing that it was a confidential instrument of any nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it would be impossible to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the prosecutor in this case did not contribute to petitioner's conviction.”
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.