Benjamin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[I]nterruptions of arguments, either by opposing counsel or the presiding judge, are matters to be approached cautiously.' United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 13, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). 'A decision not to object to a closing argument is a matter of trial strategy.' Drew v. Collins , 964 F.2d 411 , 423 (5th Cir. 1992). To constitute error a prosecutor's argument must have 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting [verdict] a denial of due process.' Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168 , 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMillan v. State · Creque v. State

2. ““ ‘There is ... no per se rule that failure to interview witnesses constitutes ineffective assistance. Ineffective assistance cases turn on their individual facts.’ Sanders v. Trickey, 875 F.2d 205, 209 (8th Cir.1989). “ ‘ “[The] failure to conduct a pretrial investigation and interview witnesses is not a per se sixth amendment violation.” Code v. Montgomery, 799 F.2d 1481, 1484 (11th Cir.1986). A counsel’s decision to not investigate “must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Strickland [v. Washington], 466 U.S. [668] at 691 [ (1984) ]. Also, the question of deficient performance “is not what is possible or ‘what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.’” Payne v. Allen, 539 F.3d 1297, 1315 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794 , 107 S.Ct. 3114 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987)).’ “Hall v. Thomas, 623 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1318 (M.D.Ala.2009).””

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

3. ““Deference to trial court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent makes particular sense in this context because, as we noted in Batson , the finding ‘largely will turn on evaluation of credibility.’ 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 , 106 S.Ct. at 1724, n. 21 . In the typical peremptory challenge inquiry, the decisive question will be whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed. There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge. As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’ Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 854 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), citing Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038 , 104 S.Ct. 2885, 2892 , 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984).””

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