Ford v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.3d 944 · 2014
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1746 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Griffin v. California
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A jury may hang for any number of reasons, including the idiosyncratic views of a single juror. Thus, while a prior hung jury may support a finding that an error committed with respect to a very close issue during a retrial is not harmless ... it does not compel such a conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Walker“[O]nly in close cases should the fact of a prior hung jury lead to a finding of prejudice. ... This is not such a case because the evidence against [the defendant] was far too strong for us to find prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Walker
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.