Burden v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 1298 · 1994
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Carnegie v. United States · Holloway v. Arkansas · Scharffe v. Perkins
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to prove that an “actual conflict” hindered [the defendant’s] lawyer’s performance, [the defendant] “must make a factual showing of inconsistent interests” or point to “specific instances in the record” to suggest an actual im pairment of his or her interests. Overall, the “actual conflict” inquiry is fact-specific, consistent with the [defendant’s] ultimate burden “to prove that his conviction was unconstitutional.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the harm from representing conflicting interests lies not just in what the attorney does but also 'in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process.'”
1 later decision 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.