Johnson v. Blackburn’s Empirical Analysis
778 F.2d 1044 · 1985
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Gochicoa v. Johnson (2000), Cupit v. Whitley (1994)
19 federal appellate ·
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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the [criminal] defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gray v. Lynn“; 64 (2) whether prosecutors misused a confession or otherwise engaged in misconduct; 65 (3) whether a joint trial or the wholesale denial of cross-examination was involved; 66 (4) whether the most important prosecution witness, as well as other prosecution witnesses, was available for cross-examination; and 67 (5) the degree to which the hearsay evidence is supported by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gochicoa v. Johnson“As a general rule, admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law, and only a contention that the [improper] admission of the evidence rendered the trial fundamentally unfair or violated a specific constitutional right will be considered in a federal collateral proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Evans v. McCotter
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.