Charles v. Foltz’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 834 · 1984
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2007
5 federal appellate · 2 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Doyle v. Ohio · Sandstrom v. Montana
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.
“evidence of prior uncounselled misdemeanor convictions for which imprisonment was not imposed [ ] may be used for impeachment purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“This claim is based on his counsel eliciting on direct examination the fact that Charles had taken mescaline, acid and other drugs, and had watched stag mov ies. Additionally, counsel elicited from Charles the fact that he had been denied parole and escaped from prison. The appellant asserts that the cumulative effect of these disclosures allowed the prosecutor to argue that he was a man with a bad background ... In the instant case, as the district court noted, the elicitation of this information is consistent with and not unreasonable trial strategy. Evidence of such drug use by the appellant and two companions who were key prosecution witnesses may well have been a foundation for attacking the credibility of these two witnesses. Moreover, the appellant’s extensive account of his activities was consistent with a trial strategy of bolstering the appellant’s credibility. Additionally, the record evinces that defense counsel performed “at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law ... and conscientiously protected his client’s interest.” Beasley [v. United States], 491 F.2d [687] at 696 [(6th Cir.1974)]. Based on these factors, the district court properly found that there was no denial of effective assistance of counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“supported by the weight of the evidence and, thus not clearly erroneous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hicks v. Scroggy
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.