Juniper v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
737 F.3d 288 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3599
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · 132 S. Ct. 1309 - Martinez v. Ryan · Juniper v. Com. · 132 S. Ct. 1276 - Martel v. Clair · Sommers v. Wells Fargo Bank of Texas, N.A.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fact, even if true, that Gray’s counsel did not identify any “sufficiently] substantial” claim under Martinez does not undercut their request that independent counsel be appointed to explore Gray’s Martinez claims. We see no material difference between an ethical prohibition on a lawyer’s attempt to investigate or advance her own potential errors, on the one hand, and a like prohibition on her attempts to identify and produce a list of her own errors giving rise to a “substantial claim” on the other hand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To be clear, if a federal habeas petitioner is represented by the same counsel as in state habeas proceedings, and the petitioner requests independent counsel in order to investigate and pursue claims under Martinez in a state where the petitioner may only raise ineffective assistance claims in an ‘initial review collateral proceeding,” qualified and independent counsel is ethically required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fowler v. Joyner
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.