Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 800 F.3d 892 - Jensen v. Clements

Jensen v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis

800 F.3d 892 · 2015

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Kotteakos v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant formed the specific criminal intent of the crime of murder in the first degree. If you find that the State has failed to sustain that burden, by reason of the intoxication of [Defendant] then [Defendant] must be found not guilty of murder in the first degree. You may find [Defendant] guilty of murder in the second degree if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime of murder in the second degree.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error.”
    1 later decision 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.