Gonzales v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
99 F.3d 978 · 1996
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Torres (1997), Smith v. Mullin (2004)
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Irvin v. Dowd · Smith v. Phillips · Patton v. Yount · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cases such as this one--based on allegations of dishonest voir dire answers--fall within a larger category that comprises all cases of alleged juror partiality, whatever the source of partiality.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Implied bias can be proved by showing that the juror had a 'personal connection to the parties or circumstances of the trial”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.