Callahan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2012
16 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 Hendrickson v. State · Callahan v. State · Groover v. State · Tait v. State
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Now, however, the petitioner, having lost his case, desires to use such choice as a reason and grounds for urging that his attorney did not properly represent him. “His attorney appears to us to have been acting very astutely in attempting every conceivable legal defense that could have been made against the petitioner’s charge of murder in the first degree. We find no incompetency on the part of his trial attorney in the record of this case. “In Groover v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 271, 280 , 156 N. E. 2d 307, 311 , we said: “ ‘Appellant has argued the incompetency of counsel at great length. It is true that counsel did not interrogate the jurors on voir dire, examine the witnesses, form the instructions or argue the case to the jury with great astuteness or powerful persuasiveness. However, counsel who was of appellant’s choosing was confronted with a most difficult case. . . . Under the circumstances counsel did not attempt to deny the heinous character of the offense, but instead asserted temporary insanity and sudden heat of passion in defense of his client. The jury did not accept the plea of insanity but concluded that the killing was with premeditation. Other counsel might have tried the case with different strategy and greater skill, but we cannot say that the consequences would have been different. (Emphasis added).’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State““. . . even the best of attorneys make decisions during the course of a trial which later may appear to have been errors in judgment. . . . We cannot ‘second guess’ a trial attorney and reverse a case simply because some other attorney might, under the attending circumstances, have pursued a different course.” Hendrickson v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 341, 344 , 118 N. E. 2d 493 , 495.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State
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.