Brown v. Muniz’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.3d 661 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Harrington v. Richter
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case of a Brady claim, the violation occurs at the time the [prosecution] should have disclosed the exculpatory evidence-i.e. before trial. If the factual predicate accrues before a petitioner brings an initial federal habeas petition, then any subsequent federal petition raising a claim based on that factual predicate is second or successive and is governed by § 2244(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Brown's Brady claim was ripe at the time of his first habeas petition because the alleged constitutional violation-failure to turn over the [information implicating the three officers]-occurred before Brown's trial even began.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“turns on whether the factual predicate existed, not whether the petitioner knew it existed at the time of his initial habeas petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.