Bagley v. Lumpkin’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 1462 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States v. Bagley (1985), United States v. Escobar de Bright (1984)
16 federal appellate · 8 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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Agurs · Davis v. Alaska · Schneble v. Florida
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.
“the government's failure to provide requested Brady information to Bagley so that he could effectively cross-examine two important government witnesses requires an automatic reversal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because it threatens the defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The District Court found beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that had the existence of the agreements been disclosed to it during trial, the disclosure would have had no effect upon its finding that the Government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent was guilty of the offenses for which he had been convicted. The District Court reasoned: Almost all of the testimony of both witnesses was devoted to the firearms charges in the indictment. Respondent, however, was acquitted on those charges. The testimony of O’Connor and Mitchell concerning the narcotics charges was relatively very brief. On cross-examination, respondent’s counsel did not seek to discredit their testimony as to the facts of distribution but rather sought to show that the controlled substances in question came from supplies that had been prescribed for respondent’s personal use. The answers of O’Connor and Mitchell to this line of cross-examination tended to be favorable to respondent. Thus, the claimed impeachment evidence would not have been helpful to respondent and would not have affected the outcome of the trial.”
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.