Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 831 F.3d 837 - Jordan v. Hepp

Jordan v. Hepp’s Empirical Analysis

831 F.3d 837 · 2016

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
March 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 Strickland v. Washington · Faretta v. California · Berger v. United States · United States v. Young · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden

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

  1. “We cannot assume that a prompt objection, followed by a curative instruction, would have been ineffective; indeed, a prompt objection would have cut off a good part of the vouching. When .the whole case turns on witness credibility, standing silent while the state vouches for its witnesses cannot be justified by reliance on a generic, non-contemporaneous instruction. See Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 644 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974) (“some occurrences at trial may be too clearly prejudicial for such a curative instruction to mitigate their effect”); see also Goodman v. Bertrand, 467 F.3d 1022, 1030-31 (7th Cir. 2006); Earls v. McCaughtry, 379 F.3d 489, 495-96 (7th Cir. 2004); Cossel v. Miller, 229 F.3d 649, 655-56 (7th Cir. 2000); Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368, 385 (6th Cir. 2005). The state trial court’s finding (adopted by the Court of Appeals) that counsel’s failure to object was not prejudicial is an unreasonable finding in the context of this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Now, the big question here is the credibility. Who do you believe? This detective and Detective Hernandez or the defendant? It boils down to that. Basically, the defendant said he never made that statement at all. Never did. No if s, ands, or buts. He never said it. Detectives Hein and Hernandez said he did. Somebody’s lying. Who is it? She’s going to put her whole career arid her future on the line for'this case? She does this everyday. She’s investigating homicide cases-eyeryday for years. Who has the most to lose based on your verdict in this case? Her or him?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no hint that the Supreme Court was talking about this vast population [of adults with no or limited literacy] in Edwards .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.