Connolly v. Roden’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.3d 505 · 2014
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Neder v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is clear logic [to this framework]: if an error had a 'substantial and injurious' effect on a jury's verdict ... then it is necessarily unreasonable to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a state court determines that a constitutional violation is harmless, a federal court may not award habeas relief under § 2254 unless the harmlessness determination itself was unreasonable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“articulated the constitutional harmless error standard, which provides that, on direct appellate review, an error at trial affecting the defendant's constitutional rights will be deemed harmless only if it can be shown to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dorisca v. Marchilli
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.