Sears v. Upton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 federal appellate · 3 district · 33 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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “effort to present some mitigation evidence”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · Apelt v. Ryan

2. ““To assess [the] probability [of a different outcome under Strickland], we consider the totality of the available mitigation evidence — both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas' proceeding — and reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation.” [Porter v. McCollum], 558 U.S. at 41[, 130 S.Ct. at 453-54 ] (internal quotation marks omitted; third alteration in original). That same standard applies — and will necessarily require a court to “speculate” as to the effect of the new evidence — regardless of how much or how little mitigation evidence was presented during the initial penalty phase.... In all circumstances, this is the proper prejudice standard for evaluating a claim of ineffective representation in the context of a penalty phase mitigation investigation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nelson v. United States · Andrus v. Texas

3. “is no prejudice when the new mitigating evidence would barely have altered the sentencing profile presented to the decision maker.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Caleb Corrothers v. State of Mississippi · State v. Simpson