Dansby v. Hobbs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Supreme Court has not decided whether a persuasive demonstration of actual innocence after trial would render unconstitutional a conviction and sentence that is otherwise free of constitutional error. See House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 554-55 , 126 S.Ct. 2064 , 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006). The Court has established, however, that the threshold for any such claim, if it were recognized, would be “extraordinarily high.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993). The threshold, if it exists, would require “more convincing proof’ than the “gateway” standard that allows for consideration of otherwise defaulted constitutional claims upon a showing of actual innocence. House, 547 U.S. at 555 , 126 S.Ct. 2064 ; see Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 315 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). Thus, on a freestanding claim of actual innocence, it is not sufficient that a petitioner shows even that it is “more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 327 , 115 S.Ct. 851 . The “extraordinarily high” threshold, if recognized, would be even higher. House, 547 U.S. at 555 , 126 S.Ct. 2064 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 233 F. Supp. 3d 733 - DeJong v. Nebraska · 350 F. Supp. 3d 741 - Jimerson v. Kelley

2. “(1) the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was a "substantial" claim; (2) the "cause" consisted of there being "no counsel" or only "ineffective" counsel during the state collateral review proceeding; and (3) the state collateral review proceeding was the "initial" review proceeding with respect to the "ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Kemp v. Kelley

3. “The line between permissible references to postarrest silence for explanatory purposes and impermissible breaches of the implied Miranda -warning promise ... must emerge from case-by-case applications of Doyle over a period of time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Pope