Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 SW3D 267 - Milburn v. State

Milburn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

22 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 184th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Henderson v. Brown · Berkery v. Commissioner · Schlossberg v. Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona

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

  1. “At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the parties stipulated to the testimony of twenty of appellant’s relatives and friends ... that each witness would have testified they had known appellant for a long period of time, they were never contacted to testify by any member of appellant’s defense team, they would have testified had they been requested to, and they would have asked the jury to consider the minimum punishment.”). . Trial counsel objected to this statement as”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, we do not require that the appellant show that there would have been a different result if counsel’s performance had not been deficient. The defendant must show only that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Freeman] has demonstrated prejudice in this case, even though it is sheer speculation 3 that [evidence of his mental illness and his medical history] would have in fact favorably influenced the jury’s assessment of punishment. Mitigating evidence clearly would have been admissible. The jury would have considered it and possibly been influenced by it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.