Sims v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis
155 F.3d 1297 · 1998
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably 760 So. 2d 903 - Way v. State (2000), Sims v. State (2000)
21 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Counsel cannot be deemed deficient for failing to present additional evidence of mitigation of which they were unaware due to [the defendant's] refusal to assist them in obtaining the information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Assuming arguendo that there was a Hitchcock error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We employ the Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), harmless error analysis to the Hitchcock error. See Williams v. Singletary, 114 F.3d 177, 180 (11th Cir.1997) (" Brecht applies only at the second step of the inquiry in determining if an already established error is harmless."), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 712 , 139 L.Ed.2d 654 (1998). In Booker v. Singletary, 90 F.3d 440, 442 (11th Cir.1996), we stated: In Brecht , the Court held that Chapman's [Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)] standard of "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" was inapplicable to habeas corpus review. In place of Chapman, the Court substituted the standard established by Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), for resolving the harmless error issue on the direct review of a criminal conviction. The Kotteakos standard asks whether the error "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." By substituting Kotteakos ' standard for Chapman's, the Court in Brecht made it easier for a state to show that a constitutional violation did not prejudice an habeas petitioner's case. 90 F.3d at 442 (11th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). We have held that Hitchcock errors are "trial type" errors governed by Brecht. See, e.g., Horsley v. State of Ala., 45 F”
1 later decision 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.