Clark v. O'Leary’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.2d 999 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2020
14 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 Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Douglas v. Alabama · Alford v. United States
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] judge properly may limit cross-examination if the questions are either irrelevant or collateral”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““defense counsel must be permitted to present its bias evidence within the context of the defense theory. [Citation.] Because the defense theory was based on alibi, the potential motive of the State’s witnesses to fabricate their alleged observation of [the defendant] at the scene of the crime had to be examined. The relevance of any gang affiliation of identification witnesses would be apparent, for besides any allegiance to other members, the potential threat of physical reprisals for testifying otherwise certainly could have motivated these witnesses to concoct a story to ‘get’ rival gang members [the defendant] and his co-defendants. Yet no such questions regarding threats were permitted. The trial court here wrested the role of fact finder from the jury by preliminarily screening the credibility of the witnesses, stating ‘Well, gang membership, even though it probably should be a felony, isn’t. And so — and it is nothing that — that affects one’s credibility.’ [Citation.] This assertion of the court was a constitutional error, permitting the State to present its case without having its only observation witnesses properly confronted.” Clark, 852 F. 2d at 1006 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the importance of the testimony, ... the extent to which [it] was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony, ... and the overall strength of [the litigant's] case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. McCaughtry
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.