Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 MT 270 - State v. Turner

State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Jefferson (2003), State v. Kougl (2004)

61 state decisions

440200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart · Furman v. Georgia · Ake v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “the defendant bears the burden of showing that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s defense strategies and trial tactics fall within a wide range of reasonable and sound professional decisions. The second prong of the Strickland test examines the prejudicial impact of counsel’s errors, and the defendant must demonstrate the existence of a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent counsel’s unprofessional errors. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. When a defendant challenges a conviction, the defendant must show the fact finder’s reasonable doubt respecting guilt could have been routed by the unprofessional errors of counsel. In making this determination, a court must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. When alleged ineffective assistance does not prejudice the defendant to the degree that the outcome is implicated, the claim may be dismissed without evaluating counsel’s performance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “both the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.