Marshall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This Court finds that the testimony of Mr. Rahmati and Mr. Gray, which was corroborated by their billing statement, proves that they were very diligent in preparing for Acklin's trial. The billing statement documents that Mr. Rahmati and Mr. Gray spent over 400 hours preparing for Acklin's trial. Mr. Rahmati also testified that not all of the time he and Mr. Gray spent preparing for trial was reflected in the billing statement. ".... "Acklin claimed that his trial counsel suffered a conflict of interest because his parents were unable to pay the $25,000 retainer fee. In particular, Acklin claimed his parents' inability to pay created a conflict of interest because 'any work performed on [Acklin's] case would reduce the amount of work counsel could do on a case which would actually generate income.' "Mr. Rahmati acknowledged that he and Mr. Gray lost money by representing Acklin. However, the testimony of Mr. Rahmati and Mr. Gray, together with their billing statement, convinces this Court beyond any reasonable doubt that a lack of payment did not curtail their efforts to defend Acklin. Trial counsel's billing statement indicates they spent more than 400 hours preparing for Acklin's trial. Trial counsel thoroughly investigated for the guilt phase and penalty phase of trial, including whether Acklin was intoxicated the night of the murders. "... The Court finds that Acklin failed to prove that his parents' failure to pay the entire retainer fee caused [trial counsel] to suffer”

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

2. “'To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). " ' "Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action 'might be considered sound trial strategy.' There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way.”

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

3. “" ' "[w]hen courts are examining the performance of an experienced trial counsel, the presumption that his conduct was reasonable is even stronger." ' Ray v. State , 80 So.3d 965 , 977 n.2 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Chandler v. United States , 218 F.3d 1305 , 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) ). "We also recognize that when reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 'the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact.' Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)."”

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