Devis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There appears to be an increase in allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. In response, the court of criminal appeals has tightened the standard of review ... In my judgment, this is precisely the wrong response. Intermediate appellate court justices have experience and expertise in evaluating the performance of-counsel and are competent to exercise judgment on an issue this subjective. Before appellate review, no participant can stop an obviously ineffective performance by defense counsel. Criminal defendants, usually not part of the most vocal or analytical segments of society, are most often unable to identify ineffectiveness, speak for themselves, and urge a resolution ... Trial judges are entirely frustrated. Once counsel is appointed or retained, a trial judge generally lacks authority to unilaterally remove counsel. Trial judges have no formal process for clearly identifying and recording incidents of ineffectiveness. Occasionally, a trial judge will réinark on the record that counsel’s performance may be deficient ... Certainly, the opposing advocate can do nothing. Following the trial, even if w;e as appellate justices believe in good conscience that we have identified an ineffective performance, we are unable to satisfy the standard of review imposed upon us ...' The bar has no effective program to identify, mentor, or eliminate ineffective defense counsel. We all proceed with the fiction that anyone who passes the bar is competent to defend all but capita”

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

2. “(1) the original is not available; (2) if available, the original would be admissible; (3) it is relevant and material to an issue in controversy; (4) its probative value outweighs any inflammatory effect; and, (5) the jury is instructed that the object is not the object used in the commission of the crime, and is to be considered by the jury solely as evidence that demonstrates or illustrates what the object used in the offense looks like.”

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