Diggs v. Welch’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.2d 667 · 1945
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 32 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 344 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney (1967), 23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope (1979)
170 federal appellate · 32 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Mooney v. Holohan · Brown v. State of Mississippi
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 344 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For these reasons we think absence of effective representation by ' counsel must be strictly construed. “ It must mean representation so lacking in competence that it becomes the duty of the court or the prosecution to observe it and to correct it. We do not believe that allegations even of serious mistakes on the part of an attorney are ground for habeas corpus standing alone. The cases where the Supreme Court has granted habeas corpus on the ground that there was no fair trip! support this interpretation of the absence of effective representation. They are all cases where the circumstances surrounding the trial shocked the conscience of the court ,únd made the proceedings a farce áñd a mockery of justice.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * It is well known that the drafting of petitions for habeas corpus has become a game in many penal institutions. Convicts are not subject to the deterrents of prosecution for perjury and contempt of court which affect ordinary litigants. The opportunity to try his former lawyer has its undoubted attraction to a disappointed prisoner. * * * “He may realize that his allegations will not be believed but the relief from monotony offered by a hearing in court is well worth the trouble of writing them down. To allow a prisoner to try the issue of the effectiveness of his counsel under a liberal definition of that phrase is to give every convict the privilege of opening a Pandora’s box of accusations which trial courts near large penal institutions would be compelled to hear. * * * ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is no allegation that the court did not select defendant’s counsel with care and with due regard for appellant’s constitutional right. We must assume that the court appointed a reputable member of the bar in whom it had confidence * * *. “It is clear that once competent counsel is appointed his subsequent negligence does not deprive the accused of any right under the Sixth Amendment. All that amendment requires is that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel. It does not mean that the constitutional rights of the defendant are impaired by counsel’s mistake subsequent to a proper appointment. “The petitioner here must, therefore, rely upon the due process clause of the Federal Constitution which guarantees him a fair trial. But to justify habeas corpus on that ground an extreme case must be disclosed. It must be shown that the proceedings were a farce and a mockery of justice.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Baxter v. Rose · Hamm v. Jones
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.