Lindsey v. King’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 1034 · 1985
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably Kyles v. Whitley (1995), State v. Johnston (1988)
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Enmund v. Florida · United States v. Ash
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he evidence withheld by the prosecutor in today’s case carried within it the potential ... for the destruction of [the observing witness’] identification of [defendant]_ That done, given the circumstances that we have recounted of poor lighting, distance, shortness of time to view the assailant, a single unshaken identifying witness, another suspect of very similar appearance on the scene, the degree of proof required for conviction and — -perhaps most telling — the degree of conviction in the jurors requisite to imposing the penalty of death, we find our confidence in the results of the trial undermined.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“our experience at the bar has been that positive identification by two unshaken witnesses possesses many times the power of such an identification by one only, and that the destruction by cross-examination of the credibility of one of two crucial witnesses — even if the other remains untouched — may have consequences for the case extending far beyond the discrediting of his own testimony.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.