Sanders v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
863 F.2d 218 · 1988
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Diaz (1999), United States v. Wallach (1991)
62 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 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 United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a firm belief that but for ... [it], the defendant would most likely not have been convicted,”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[tjhere is no logical reason to limit a due process violation to state action defined as prosecutorial knowledge of perjured testimony or even false testimony by witnesses with some affiliation with a government agency. Such a rule elevates form over substance.”). 23 . During oral argument, counsel indicated that Blalock was also using this newly discovered evidence to seek some form of relief in state court. To the degree that additional evidence obtained from that effort provides him with a valid habeas claim, the outcome of this opinion does not preclude such a claim. For example, Blalock's discovery of evidence that the state intentionally presented perjured testimony would create new issues that, given the unique circumstances of this case, could meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b) — (d). 24 . While the Ohio Court of Appeals opinion identified the detective in question as Detective “Hribar” other documentation appears to correctly identify him as Detective “Ehrbar.” 25 . Blalock does not contend that the state court restricted his efforts to cross-examine Willis with regard to this alleged confession. 26 . Notably, Blalock also fails to provide any “clearly established”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a credible recantation of the testimony in question would most likely change the outcome of the trial and a state leaves the conviction in place.”
3 later decisions 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.