Hindman v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “‘(1) By “ground” we mean simply a sufficient legal basis for granting the relief sought by the applicant. For example, the contention that an involuntary confession was admitted in evidence against him is a distinct ground for federal collateral relief. But a claim of involuntary confession predicated on alleged psychological coercion does not raise a different “ground” than does one predicated on alleged physical coercion. In other words, identical grounds may also be proved by different factual allegations. So also, identical grounds may often be supported by different legal arguments____’ Mr. Hindman alleged in his Rule 27.26 proceeding that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The state courts heard evidence on this case and found against him. Now he wants to make what he says is another argument in support of this claim. It would defy common sense and the considerations of judicial economy emphasized in Rose v. Lundy, [ 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 ] supra, ... to hold that Hindman must return to state court, and then come back to federal district court, every time he thinks of a new piece of evidence which could have been produced.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 654 F. Supp. 515 - Harper v. Grammer