Roman v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.2d 214 · 1987
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Harris v. Reed (1989), City of Beaumont v. Bouillion (1995)
39 federal appellate · 27 state decisions — followed in 13 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)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1]t is well established that when a state prisoner has failed to raise his federal constitutional claim in the state courts in accordance with state procedural rules, including those requiring that claims of constitutional defects in the trial be raised on direct appeal from a conviction, there has been a procedural default that bars federal habeas review unless the petitioner shows both cause for the noncompliance and prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation. The principle is relaxed when the state courts themselves have disregarded the default and decided the constitutional claim on the merits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that 'the issue had been perceived by other defendants and that it was a live one in the courts at the time' means that an argument was not so novel that counsel could not assert it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““[T]he sixth amendment guarantees only the possibility of a petit jury reflecting a cross section of the community and forbids the prosecutor to exercise his peremptories discriminatorily in a manner that eliminates that possibility *** [W]hat the sixth amendment guarantees to a defendant is not that he will have a petit jury of any particular composition but that he will have the possibility of a jury that reflects a fair cross section of the community. The prosecutor violates sixth amendment rights when he starts out to eliminate that possibility.” (Emphasis in original.)”
2 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.