Brady v. Pfister’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 3 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Johnson v. Williams [, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1088 , 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013),] and Richter, it is clear that a bad reason does not necessarily mean that the ultimate result was an unreasonable application of established doctrine. A state court could write that it rejected a defendant’s claim because Tarot cards dictated that result, but its decision might nonetheless be a sound one. If a state court’s rationale does not pass muster under the Williams v. Taylor standard for Section 2254(d)(1) cases, the only consequence is that further inquiry is necessary. At that point, it is no longer appropriate to attach any special weight to the last state court’s expressed reasons. The court’s judgment, however, is another matter. With the last state' court’s reasoning set aside, the federal court should turn to the remainder of the state record, including explanations offered by lower courts. The only question in that situation is whether AEDPA deference applies to those lower state-court decisions, or if review is de novo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holland v. Rivard · Whatley v. Zatecky

2. “first, whether Richter (a) applies only to cases in which the state court offers no reasoning, or instead (b) holds in effect that federal courts should always entirely disregard the state court’s rationale and decide independently if the bottom line is justifiable; and second, if Richter applies only to summary dispositions, how a federal court should evaluate a case in which the state court offers a reason, but that reason is either wrong as a matter of law or patently irrational.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whatley v. Zatecky