Roy v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.3d 863 · 1996
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2013 · most notably California v. Roy (1996), Jeffries v. Wood (1997)
42 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'simply fails to alert the jurors they must consider' " materiality, as in Keys, the omission is harmless "only if review of the facts found by the jury establishes [beyond a reasonable doubt] that the jury necessarily found the omitted element.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Even though an element of the offense is not specifically mentioned, it remains possible the jury made the necessary finding. Review for harmless error is appropriate, but it is the type of review discussed in Carella [v. California, 491 U.S. 263 , 109 S.Ct. 2419 , 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989).] That is, the omission is harmless only if review of the facts found by the jury establishes [beyond a reasonable doubt] that the jury necessarily found the omitted element.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.