Grooms v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
923 F.2d 88 · 1991
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Bryant v. Scott (1994), Charles Adrian Foster v. Ronald Ward Wa Drew Edmondson (1999)
20 federal appellate · 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 Strickland v. Washington · Taylor v. Illinois · Williams v. Florida · Baldwin v. New York Williams · Lawrence v. Armontrout
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nce a defendant identifies potential alibi witnesses, it is unreasonable not to make some effort to contact them to ascertain whether their testimony would aid the defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“attempt to investigate and to argue on the record for the admission of the alibi witnesses' testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prejudice can be shown by demonstrating that the uncalled alibi witnesses would have testified if called at trial and that their testimony would have supported Grooms’ alibi____ The testimony of [the two mechanics] at the state court’s habeas corpus hearing established that they would have been available to testify if they had been called and that their testimony, if believed, would have supported Grooms’ alibi defense. Thus, there is a reasonable probability that had these witnesses been called, the outcome of the trial ... would have been different, given the arguably plausible motivation [the informant] had to be less than a disinterested, objective witness against Grooms. Likewise, ... the alibi testimony could have raised a reasonable doubt about [the informantes veracity and credibility____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Parris W.
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.