Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 723 F.2d 1165 - Carrillo v. Perkins

Carrillo v. Perkins’s Empirical Analysis

723 F.2d 1165 · 1984

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
4
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2007

11 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

110198419902000decided

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)

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Davis v. Alaska · Pointer v. Texas · Sumner v. Mata · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States

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

  1. “[I]t seems clear to us that to make ... inquiry [into the witness's credibility] effective, defense counsel should have been permitted to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness. Petitioner was thus denied the right of effective cross-examination which "would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it"”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he trial judge's discretionary authority to limit cross-examination `comes into play only after there has been permitted as a matter of right sufficient cross-examination to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the sixth amendment right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him requires that a defendant in a state criminal case be allowed to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness by cross-examination directed at showing that the witness is under probation for a prior criminal 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.