Scott v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
975 F.2d 1473 · 1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Agurs · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Sumner v. Mata · Avery v. State of Alabama · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court’s failure to grant a continuance to enable a defendant to exercise his constitutionally protected right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance may, in some circumstances, constitute a denial of due process. When a denial of a continuance forms a basis of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not only must there have been an abuse of discretion but it must have been so arbitrary and fundamentally unfair that it violates constitutional principles of due process. To warrant habeas relief, there must also be some showing that granting the continuance would have furthered the court’s attempt to secure a just determination of the cause. We have considered the following factors in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to due process by a denial of a motion for a continuance: the diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coy v. Renico“we look to the entire trial to determine if there is a reasonable probability that with [Pike's] proffered testimony the verdict would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Manlove v. Tansy“she has lied in regard to activities of other people in order to manipulate people,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Manlove v. Tansy
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.