Johnson v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis
961 F.2d 748 · 1992
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 153 Ohio St. 3d 497 - State v. Beasley (2018), 31 Cal. 4th 93 - People v. Yeoman (2003)
29 federal appellate · 14 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 · Teague v. Lane · Arizona v. Fulminante · United States v. Frady · Duncan v. State of Louisiana
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Trying a defendant before a biased jury is akin to providing him no trial at all. It constitutes a fundamental defect in the trial mechanism itself.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Absent the showing of a strategic decision, failure to request the removal of a biased juror can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen a defendant fails to object to the qualifications of a juror, he is without remedy only if he fails to prove actual bias.”
2 later decisions 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.