Whited v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In addressing Whited’s contention in his motion for a new trial that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by waiving closing argument, the circuit made the following findings of fact: “ ‘[T]he Court finds that counsel for [Whited] did in fact waive the right to offer a closing argument to the jury. During the hearing on the motion for a new trial, trial counsel for [Whited] stated it was .trial strategy in not offering a closing and to prevent the prosecution from further commenting on [Whited’s] conduct. “‘It is this Court’s understanding that the law requires the Court give deference to trial counsel’s decisions and strategic choices. And it is the Court’s opinion that the waiver of a closing argument did not affect the outcome of the verdict. ' As such, the Court does not find that counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. And the Court does not find that [counsel’s failure to make a closing argument] warrants setting aside the judgment of the jury and granting a new trial.’ “The record indicates that, at the hearing on Whited’s motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that his decision to waive closing argument was trial strategy. When asked specific questions regarding his strategic decisions, however, trial counsel testified that his recollection of the events surrounding Whited’s case was diminished based on the sudden death of his wife less than two mo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whited v. State

2. ““““In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must meet the two-pronged test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): “ ““ “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. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” “““466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . “ ““ “The performance component outlined in Strickland is an objective one: that is, whether counsel’s assistance, judged under ‘prevailing professional norms,’ was ‘reasonable considering all the circumstances.’ ” ' Daniels v. State, 650 So.2d 544, 552 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), cer t., denied, [ 514 U.S. 1024 , 115 S.Ct. 1375 , 131 L.Ed.2d 230 (1995) ], quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 . “A court deciding an actual ineffectiveness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whited v. State

3. ““The testimony of [Floyd’s] trial counsel established that he made a strategic decision to forgo his closing argument in order to deprive the prosecution of its main opportunity to argue its case to the jury. The uncontradicted testimony of trial -counsel was that the prosecutor’s initial closing argument had been quite brief and had consisted of little more than a reading of the indictment. In light of this, Floyd’s trial counsel decided that because he had no persuasive arguments,, his client’s interest could best be served by denying the prosecution, who had the burden of proof, of its chance to argue how that burden had been..met. This is exactly the sort of strategic decision which the United States Supreme Court has held to be virtually unchallengeable in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 690 , 104 S,Ct. at 2065. Furthermore, Floyd did not even suggest a manner-in which his trial counsel could have argued in closing that would have affected the outcome of his trial. Thus, Floyd has failed to establish a reasonable probability that, but for his lawyer’s waiving his guilt-stage closing argument, the outcome of his trial would have been different. Therefore, the circuit court’s findings were correct.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Whited v. State