E.K. Wilcox, Jr., Cross-Appellant v. J. Paul Ford, Warden, Cross-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “The federal courts have consistently reiterated that this standard for weighing the constitutional efficiency of the evidence is a limited one. It is not required that the evidence rule out every hypothesis except that of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences, we must presume that the jury resolved such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, deferring to the credibility of the evidence. The simple fact that the evidence gives some support to the defendant’s theory of innocence does not warrant the grant of habeas relief.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dorn v. Singletary · 932 F. Supp. 2d 1257 - Correll v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

2. “The police misconduct here, while not commendable, is not so extreme that it violates a sense of 'fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal justice.' " Id. at 1148. 470 What really offends the majority and seems to support its conclusion of a substantive due process violation is the fact that the officers interrogated Cooper in knowing violation of his Miranda rights. This is not enough to establish a violation of substantive due process rights. 471 As discussed above, the police conduct did not violate Cooper's substantive Fifth Amendment rights. To hold that the officers nonetheless violated a separate constitutional right because they disregarded prophylactic rules designed to safeguard Fifth Amendment rights is anomalous. The Supreme Court has indicated that Miranda rights themselves are not constitutional rights. Bootstrapping a constitutional claim through a due process analysis sidesteps this fundamental point. 472 The Supreme Court's instruction that there should be "great reluctance to expand the reach”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooper v. Dupnik

3. “threatened to charge [one of the witnesses] with murder, threatened to lynch him, put words in his mouth, and told him he was headed for eternal damnation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gary Leon Brown v. Charlie Jones