Stouffer v. Trammell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pavatt v. Royal · Pavatt v. Royal

2. “We do not generally consider issues that were not raised before the district court as part of the habeas petition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grant v. Royal · Simpson v. Carpenter

3. “Toward the end of the penalty stage of Mr. Stouffer’s second trial, defense counsel noticed the husband of Juror Stacey Vetter in the courtroom. Mr. Vetter was “laughing, joking, handshaking, and embracing” with a former roommate of shooting victim Doug Iv-ens. 2nd Stage Tr. Vol. IV at 605. The roommate was sitting with Mr. Ivens’s family. According to the prosecutor, the roommate knew that Mr. Vetter’s wife was a juror. Defense counsel approached Mr. Vetter and asked him about his relationship with Mr. Ivens’s family and friends. Mr. Vetter responded that he had met them about thirty minutes earlier. As soon as defense counsel turned away, Mr. Vetter “disappeared out of the courtroom,” id. at 607 , and an assistant attorney general' watched him “seoot[ ] to the elevator,” id. at 615 . When proceedings resumed, defense counsel informed the court of Mr. Vet-ter’s presence and activity in the courtroom and asked to question the Vetters as to whether they had communicated about the case. The prosecutor conceded it was appropriate to question Mr. Vet-ter and the roommate, and the trial court agreed to allow it. The attorneys discovered, however, that both men had left the building immediately after defense counsel had spoken with Mr. Vet-ter. Defense counsel then suggested taking testimony from another individual who had observed Mr. Vetter in the courtroom — Deputy Boles, the sheriffs deputy responsible for escorting Mr. Stouffer during the trial. Deputy Boles testified in camer”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stouffer v. Duckworth