Ferrell v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"All grounds for relief available to an applicant at the time he or she commences a proceeding under this chapter must be raised in his or her original, or a supplemental or amended, application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds that in the interest of justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luigi Ricci v. State of Rhode Island · Anderson v. State

2. ““The applicant could have and indeed should have raised this issue in his first application for postconviction relief. His failure to raise this allegation at that time results in a bar to the litigation of that issue and that claim for relief. This Court has not heard from [the] applicant, nor can it glean from the record, a valid reason why this issue was not raised in the first application for post-conviction relief.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Higham v. State · Lyons v. State

3. “[Mr. Ferrell] next asserts that the motion justice erred in not considering whether the partial exclusion of Debra Baptista’s alibi evidence (evidence that arguably could have provided [Mr. Ferrell] with an alibi at the time of the crime) constituted a violation of his right to compulsory process. The motion justice determined that he was precluded from addressing this issue because it already had been decided in a previous appeal before this Court. We concur. In applicant’s direct appeal, we specifically reviewed this issue and concluded that applicant suffered no constitutional prejudice as a result of [Debra] Baptista’s excluded testimony. See Ferrell III, 889 A.2d at 191 (concluding that applicant “did not suffer constitutionally significant prejudice as a result of [Baptista’s] excluded testimony”). The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation on this issue; that doctrine foreclosed not only review by the motion justice, but further review by this Court as well. See, e.g., Carrozza [v. Voccola], 962 A.2d [73] at 78 [(2009)]; Miguel [v. State], 924 A.2d [3] at 4-5 [ (2007) ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 935 F. Supp. 2d 422 - Ferrell v. Wall