Morlett v. Lynaugh’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 1521 · 1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2000
4 federal appellate ·
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 · North Carolina v. Pearce · Wainwright v. Sykes · Ashe v. Swenson · Lisenba v. People of State of California
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f Morlett’s counsel had made a timely motion to quash, the State would have been obligated to specifically plead the method of coercion used by Morlett to influence Herrera at the murder trial ... As the evidence at trial demonstrated that Morlett used threats to coerce Herrera to testify falsely, the State could simply have reindicted Morlett specifically alleging the coercion. Thus, even assuming counsel’s performance was defi cient in failing to move to quash, no prejudice has been shown.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“counsel made errors so egregious that he did not satisfy the requirements of ‘counsel’ under the sixth amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. East v. Scott
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.