Zeitvogel v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
84 F.3d 276 · 1996
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Clay (1998), Revilla v. Gibson (2002)
22 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Coleman v. Thompson · McCleskey v. Zant · Zant v. Stephens
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court acted well within its discretion in deciding restraints were necessary to prevent Zeitvogel from escaping and to protect others in the courtroom. At the time of trial, Zeit-vogel had murder, rape, and assault convictions and had escaped from state custody once before. See Gilmore v. Armontrout, 861 F.2d 1061, 1071 (8th Cir.1988), cert, denied, 490 U.S. 1114 , 109 S.Ct. 3176 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1989). Further, the trial court’s decision to require restraints did not prejudice Zeitvogel. Even without seeing the shackles, the jury would have learned from the trial evidence that Zeitvogel was an inmate. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 507 , 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1694-95 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). After all, Zeitvogel killed Dew in the maximum security area of the Missouri State Penitentiary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed [petitioner's] sentence during his direct appeal...and addressed and decided the proportionality issue in its opinion... Under our recent decisions, this is the end of our inquiry. See LaRette [v. Delo ], 44 F.3d [681] at 688 [(8th Cir. 1995)]; Foster [v. Delo ], 39 F.3d [873] at 882 [(8th Cir.1994)]; Murray v. Delo, 34 F.3d 1367, 1376-77 (8th Cir. 1994)[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“actually prevented post-conviction counsel from raising the claims and presenting the evidence in state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bannister v. Delo
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.