18 So. 3d 473 - Beasley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Agurs · McMann v. Richardson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unquestioned that under the prevailing professional norms ... counsel has an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background. Moreover, counsel must not ignore pertinent avenues for investigation of which he or she should have been aware. It is axiomatic that counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In the context of penalty phase errors of counsel, the prejudice prong of Strickland is shown where, absent the errors, there is a reasonable probability that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have been different or the deficiencies substantially impair confidence in the outcome of the proceedings. [A defendant] must show that but for his counsel’s deficiency, there is a reasonable probability he would have received a different sentence. To assess that probability, we consider the totality of the available mitigation evidence— both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the evidentiary hearing — and reweigh it against the evidence in aggravation. However, the Supreme Court reiterated in Porter that “we do not require a, defendant to. show ‘that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome’ of his penalty proceeding, but rather that he establish ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] outcome.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.