Montgomery v. Petersen’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.2d 407 · 1988
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably United States v. Jackson (1991), United States v. Mealy (1988)
52 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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 · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · In re Martin-Trigona · Batson v. Kentucky
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he jury might well have viewed the otherwise impeachable testimony of the twelve [defense] witnesses in a different light had the jury also heard the testimony of this disinterested witness. Therefore, the [disinterested witness’] testimony may have transformed a weak case into a strong one merely by corroborating the testimony of these other defense witnesses.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he state appears to question in its brief Judge Mills’ classification of the Sears witness as an “alibi” witness.... We think such an argument is particularly unconvincing in light of the fact that the state never contended ... that the petitioner could have purchased the bicycle at the Sears store in Springfield and still have committed the burglaries with [the coconspirator]. “A defense that places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party” is an alibi defense.... Under [the coconspirator]’s version of the crime, the petitioner spent the entire day with him outside of Springfield planning and executing the burglaries. Thus, the testimony of the Sears "witness, if believed, rendered it impossible for the petitioner to be the guilty party under the prosecution’s theory of the case, as presented through the testimony of the professed accomplice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Parris W.
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.