Cummings v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 1504 · 1989
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Frost (1997), United States v. McVeigh (1998)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Picard v. Connor · Murphy v. Florida · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Patton v. Yount
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he discretion afforded the trial judge to conduct voir dire as he sees fit must be bounded by protection of the defendant's constitutional rights, especially in a situation of extensive pretrial publicity. For example, in United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190 (5th Cir.1978), the former Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction of a defendant who had been the subject of extensive pretrial publicity. The Court held that, in a case where all the jurors had been exposed to some pretrial publicity, simply asking members of the jury venire to indicate by a show of hands whether the publicity would impair their ability to render an impartial decision did not adequately protect the defendant's constitutional rights. The preferred approach in such cases, as discussed in Davis , is to conduct individual examination of the jurors. Individual voir dire allows the trial court to probe the effect of any adverse publicity on the juror and insulates the jurors from one another's prejudicial comments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bolin v. State“Although the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the standard of review for a claim of presumed prejudice, this Circuit has treated the standard as a mixed question of fact and law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dyer v. Calderon“sufficiently prejudicial and inflammatory and [it] ... saturated the community where the trial was held,”
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.