Satter v. Leapley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]ny challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict in a state prosecution is necessarily a due process challenge to the conviction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blakney v. Young · Alfred E. Myre v. State of Iowa

2. “FACTS [¶ 2] Satter was tried and convicted of two counts of unpremeditated murder in 1974. He was sentenced to two concurrent life terms without possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Satter, 90 S.D. 485 , 242 N.W.2d 149 (1976) (Satter I). In his direct appeal, he asserted, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence of the depraved mind required for second-degree murder and that there was insufficient evidence to counter his claim of self-defense. The South Dakota Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient. The court noted that, notwithstanding his claim of self-defense, Satter testified at trial that he had shot the victim in the back of the head after the victim had already been shot twice. Id. at 151-52. In 1986, Satter filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the South Dakota state courts. He raised these issues: 1) voluntariness of statements to police; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) inadequate jury instructions. (Citation omitted). The state habeas court denied his petition ..., but the South Dakota Supreme Court later reversed, holding that certain statements should not have been admitted into evidence. Satter v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 425, 428 (S.D.1988) (Satter II). The state petitioned for a rehearing, which was granted, on the limited issues of the voluntariness of a statement and ineffective assistance of counsel. Satter v. Solem, 434 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 1989), cert, denied sub nom. Rist v. Satt”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Satter

3. “To satisfy exhaustion requirements, a habeas petitioner who has, on direct appeal, raised a claim that is decided on its merits need not raise it again in a state post-conviction proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blakney v. Young