Yeomans 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. “" '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." " ' Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 . " ' "[T]he purpose of ineffectiveness review is not to grade couns”

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

2. ““[i]f the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no -material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings .... ””

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

3. “in its discretion ... [to] take evidence by affidavits, written interrogatories, or depositions, in lieu of an evidentiary hearing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Smith