Reutter v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
888 F.2d 578 · 1989
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Willis (1993), United States v. Kojayan (1993)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · State v. Reutter
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our conclusion does not depend on a finding of either an express or an implied agreement . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The materiality of the non-disclosed information becomes even more apparent in light of the prosecutor’s closing remarks, which capitalized on defense counsel’s ignorance by arguing to the jury that Trygstad had no possible reason to be untruthful in his testimony because he had already been sentenced and therefore had “nothing he could gain” from cooperating with the State. Although we would have less problem with these remarks if the state had disclosed to the defense the fact of Trygstad’s impending commutation hearing, in the cir cumstances of this case the remarks can be regarded only as misleading and highly improper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ware v. State“The cross-examination of Trygstad could have been significantly more effective ... had defense counsel known that Trygstad’s hearing had been rescheduled (without explanation) on two occasions and now was set to take place soon after Trygstad’s appearance as the state’s star witness at petitioner’s trial. It is not difficult to discern that the disclosure of this information might have had a substantial impact on the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ware v. State
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.