Preston v. Maggio’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 99 · 1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Garber v. United States · United States v. John E. Test, Francis R. Salazar v. United States of America, United States of America v. Enrique Sandoval Chavez, United States of America v. Cameron David Bishop · United States v. Butera · Preston v. Maggio
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Preston must, as a minimum, [have shown] that names of Desire residents were in fact chosen from the wheel to make up the venire out of which his jury panel was eventually chosen, and that they were not served.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Atwell v. Blackburn“is so small that we may not infer, as a statistical matter, that some number of them must necessarily have been included in the venire chosen from the wheel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Atwell v. Blackburn“no evidence was presented that in the selection process for”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Atwell v. Blackburn
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.