Roth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance, the petitioner bears a heavy burden. The petitioner must prove that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. As to the first prong, the petitioner must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s representation fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. An attorney’s performance is measured considering the prevailing professional norms. In assessing the reasonableness of counsel’s performance, courts must consciously attempt to limit the distorting effect of hindsight. Courts must consider all the circumstances and decide whether there were errors so serious that defendant was not accorded the “counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. In order to meet the second prong, the petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The petitioner must prove not only that counsel’s representation was ineffective, but must specify how and where counsel was incompetent and the probable different result. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Odom v. State · Ratliff v. State

2. “If the exclusionary rule applies when a statute or rule implicating substantive constitutional rights is violated, and the source of the exclusionary rule is the Fourth Amendment, then we must also consider the application of the good faith exception set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). See State v. Herrick, 1999 ND 1, ¶ 12 , 588 N.W.2d 847 ; see also United States v. Maholy, 1 F.3d 718, 721-23 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that the fruits of a nighttime search were admissible under the good faith exception, even if the search violated the Fourth Amendment). Under the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule, suppression is not the appropriate remedy for an illegal search if an officer’s reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable. Utvick, 2004 ND 36, ¶ 26 , 675 N.W.2d 387 . The good faith inquiry focuses upon whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization. State v. Van Beek, 1999 ND 53, ¶ 25 , 591 N.W.2d 112 . However, an officer may not always reasonably rely upon the validity of a search warrant issued by a magistrate. Id. We have recognized four specific situations when the good faith exception does not apply because the officer’s reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable: (1) when the issuing magistrate was misled by false information intentionally or negligently given by the affi-ant; (2) when the magistrat”

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

3. “Where defense counsel’s failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness, the defendant must also prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excluda-ble evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice. Thus, while respondent’s defaulted Fourth Amendment claim is one element of proof of his Sixth Amendment claim, the two claims have separate identities and reflect different constitutional values.”

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