Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 857 F.3d 518 - Hope v. Cartledge

Hope v. Cartledge’s Empirical Analysis

857 F.3d 518 · 2017

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the crucial issue at trial was witness credibility, and the parties presented the jury with two different and irreconcilable factual scenarios. The State's version directly placed [the defendant] at the scene of the crime and implicated him in the robbery. [The defendant's] version directly placed him at home and absolved him of any involvement in the robbery. The parties' closing arguments discussed the witnesses' credibility, and the trial court specifically instructed the jury that it must judge credibility. The guilty verdict necessarily establishes that the jury found the State's witnesses to be credible and believed the State's version of events. We do not believe that the inclusion of an alibi instruction would have changed the jury's credibility determination or the ultimate verdict .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.