Moore v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 702 · 1987
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Yohey v. Collins (1993), Clisby v. Jones (1992)
65 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant must show more than a mere possibility of assistance from an expert. Rather, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the requested expert would aid in his defense, and that the denial of expert assistance would result in an unfair trial.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Messer v. Kemp · Thacker v. Rees“the reasonableness of the trial judge’s action at the time he took it. This assessment necessarily turns on the sufficiency of the petitioner’s explanation' as to why he needed an expert. That is, having heard petitioner’s explanation, should the trial judge have concluded that unless he granted his request petitioner would likely be denied an adequate opportunity fairly to confront the State’s case and to present his defense?”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Requiring trial courts, both state and federal, to provide for expert assistance — through direct appointment or a grant of funds — would place a substantial, if not onerous, burden on the administration of criminal justice. For example, the trial court would have to (1) appoint a defense expert for every expert available to the government; (2) provide for expert assistance whether or not such assistance turned out to be needed; and (3) provide for any additional experts the appointed experts might need to explore theories that could aid the defense in cross-examining prosecution witnesses or in presenting the defense’s case. We question the wisdom of such due process requirements absent a substantial showing, such as the one made in Ake , of a significant benefit to the truth-seeking function of a trial.””
3 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.