Clark v. Lashbrook’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.3d 660 · 2018
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Griffin v. California · Darden v. Wainwright · Cullen v. Pinholster · Cullen v. Pinholster
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant can reasonably be expected to deny or explain . . . if he does not testify . . . the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the victim] is dead, she can't tell you her side of the story. The defendant won't.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“assumes . . . that the prosecution's statement is only susceptible to one meaning”
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.