127 F. Supp. 2d 899 - Van Hook v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
April 2009
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Picard v. Connor · Engle v. Isaac
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the twenty-seventh claim, Moreland again argued that he was entitled to have an expert appointed for the purpose of explaining his cultural background and the effect it had on his development. This claim is also raised as an ineffective assistance of counsel argument in the thirty-eighth claim. More-land presented an affidavit of a social worker who opined that Moreland’s development in an “inner city culture” needed to be presented to the panel and that the failure to do so affected his trial. Our review of the social worker’s affidavit indicates that he would have testified that Moreland’s upbringing in an inner city environment helped to shape his development and that Moreland was “locked into the culture totally.” The affidavit also indicates that Moreland’s background made him into a “maximum underachiever” who maintained his own level of integrity and ethics. Moreland claims that this information would have helped him in the guilt/innocence phase of trial by “explaining his complex relationship to the [victims].” Moreland also contends the evidence would have been of help in the mitigation phase by providing him with evidence of the R.C. 2929.04(B)(2) [“strong provocation”] and (B)(7) [catchall] mitigating factors. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that trial counsel’s strategy during the mitigation phase was to emphasize that Moreland’s chronic alcoholism caused him to lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform hi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.