Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because both prongs of the Strickland test must be satisfied to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the failure to establish one of the prongs is a valid basis, in and of itself, to deny the claim”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brownfield v. State · State v. Kerley

2. “'address both components of the inquiry if the [petitioner] makes an insufficient showing on one.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brownfield v. State · State v. Kerley

3. “(1) That his trial counsel were ineffective for not hiring Dr. Goff, or another neuropsychologist, to evaluate Reeves for intellectual disability and for not then presenting testimony from that expert during the penalty phase of the trial that Reeves was intellectually disabled in order to establish a mitigating circumstance; (2) That his trial counsel were ineffective for relying during the penalty phase of his trial on the testimony of Dr. Ro-nan, the court-appointed psychologist who examined Reeves before trial to determine his competency to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offense, to present mitigation evidence; (3) That his trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting during the penalty phase of the trial to Dr. Ronan’s testimony on cross-examination that Reeves was not intellectually disabled; (4) That his trial-counsel were ineffective for not conducting an adequate mitigation investigation and for not presenting what he claimed was substantial mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of the trial; (5) That his trial counsel were ineffective for not' objecting at trial to (a) the prosecutor’s allegedly urging the jury during closing arguments at the penalty phase of the trial to consider nonstatutory aggravating circumstances to impose a death sentence; (b) the prosecutor’s introducing evidence and making argument during both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial that Reeves was involved in a gang; (c) the prosecutor’s allegedly referrin”

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