Nassar v. Sissel’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.2d 119 · 1986
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Boykin (1993), United States v. Gonzales (1996)
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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 · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Ward v. Village of Monroeville
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant further asserts that a new trial should be granted for failure of County Attorney, Monty Fisher, to withdraw as prosecutor when he learned that he would be called as a defense witness. Appellant bases this claim on Canon 5, Disciplinary Rule 5-102 of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility. Nassar claims that failure of the County Attorney to withdraw resulted in the denial of his right to a fair trial. However, the section of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility which appellant cites only requires an attorney to withdraw if he will be called as a witness on behalf of his client. When a prosecutor is called to testify for the defense, not the prosecution, he is not necessarily required to withdraw. Chessman v. Teets, 239 F.2d 205, 214 (9th Cir.1956), vacated on other grounds, 354 U.S. 156 , 77 S.Ct. 1127 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957). Appellant has not shown any constitutional violations in this regard. There is no duty to withdraw under the circumstances of this case and therefore, appellant’s claim is insupportable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Petitioner] is entitled, under due process, to a “neutral and detached judge.” Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 62 , 93 S.Ct. 80, 84 , 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972). A review of this type of claim requires examining the trial court’s actions in the context of the entire trial to see if those actions were sufficiently prejudicial to violate due process. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431, 436 (1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.