Bland v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably John Joseph Romano v. Gary Gibson Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (2001), 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006)
11 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
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 · Illinois v. Gates · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Aguilar v. Texas
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“An analysis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim begins with the presumption that trial counsel was competent to provide the guiding hand that the accused needed, and therefore the burden is on the accused to demonstrate both a deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Strickland sets forth the two-part test which must be applied to determine whether a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient, and second, he must show the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Unless the defendant makes both showings, "it cannot be said that the conviction ... resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable." Id., at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . Appellant must demonstrate that counsel's representation was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action could not be considered sound trial strategy. Id., at 688-89 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 . The burden rests with Appellant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for any unprofessional errors by counsel, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi dence in the outcome. Id., 466 U.S. at 698 , 104 S.Ct. at ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. FUSTON v. STATE · Lott v. State“When a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel can be disposed of on the ground of lack of prejudice, that course should be followed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.