DiBlasio v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis
932 F.2d 1038 · 1991
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Bauer v. Waldschmidt · Lehman Bros. v. Lilly · Prestidge v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[In White], as here, defendant took the stand and testified that the informant induced him to commit a crime in order to help the informant. In DiBlasio's case, if the defense were believed, the apparent salesmanship of an eager drug dealer could be viewed as the playacting of a drug abuser who, having access to a small supply of cocaine, assumed the role of a dealer in order to aid a friend. However, as in White , the only witness who could corroborate this defense was the confidential informant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vega v. Walsh“[t]he only remaining issue is whether the defense ... [was] credible. This is a question reserved for the jury as fact-finder.” Id. 6 . Such types of evidence, as identified by the court in Lujan , include without limitation”
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.