Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Wjhen this court and/or the Alabama Supreme Court has specifically addressed and rejected a substantive claim on direct appeal, whether reviewing for plain or preserved error, a petitioner in a Rule 32 proceeding who raises an ineffective-assistance claim based on that same substantive claim cannot establish prejudice under Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Taylor · Taylor v. State

2. “(1) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not effectively challenge his arrest and his consent to search his hotel room; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the suppression hearing because they did not effectively challenge the admissibility of his statement to law enforcement officers; (3) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to a “supplement” to his statement to law enforcement officers; (4) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to the indictment on double jeopardy grounds; (5) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during the voir dire proceedings; (6) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not timely object to the prosecutor’s attempts to minimize the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict during the penalty phase of the trial; (7) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to inflammatory remarks the prosecutor made during his opening statement; (8) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to the prosecutor leading and coaching witnesses; (9) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to the prosecutor’s comments concerning reasonable doubt; (10) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not object to the prosecutor’s allegedly improper cl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. State

3. ““Lee first alleges that his trial counsel were ineffective ‘for failing to make a for-cause challenge or peremptory challenge against juror [H.W.] According to Lee, [H.W.] was biased against Mr. Jackson [defense counsel] because Jackson had presided in a case in Selma Municipal Court in which [H.W.] was a party. Lee also points out that [H.W.] had been a victim of a crime of violence. “During general voir dire of the entire venire the prosecutor asked if anyone knew Jackson and [H.W.] responded. The prosecution also asked if [H.W.] or anyone else that responded knew or had heard of Mr. Jackson, could not serve and be fair to Lee and the State. No one responded. This Court recalls nothing occurring during voir dire raising the slightest indication that [H.W.] had any animosity toward Mr. Jackson or toward Lee. There is nothing in the trial record, and Lee proffers nothing in his amended Rule 32 petition, indicating [H.W.] had any animosity toward Jackson. Further, nothing in Lee’s amended Rule 32 raises the slightest inference that [H.W.] had been interviewed by anyone on behalf of Lee and had indicated his experience with Jackson had any effect on his jury service. Lee has proffered no facts his trial counsel could have presented that would have required this Court to grant a for-cause challenge against [H.W.]. Lee also fails to proffer any facts to establish he was prejudiced because his trial counsel did not exercise a peremptory strike against [H.W.]. “The Court finds that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 44 So. 3d 1145 - Lee v. State