Thompson v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. ““Counsel’s statements in closing, as well as Counsel’s disclosure to the jury that they were court appointed, hardly comport with the fundamental duty of loyalty to a client and of ensuring ‘that the adversarial testing process works to produce a just result under the standards governing decision.’ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . Counsel could hardly hope to persuade a jury to be merciful while at the same time stressing the immoral and worthless quality of their client’s life and also reminding the jury that they were appointed by the court to represent Thompson.... Moreover, although we recognize the need to develop and maintain credibility and rapport with the jury, it is unreasonable for trial counsel to do so at the expense of the client’s best interests. “Nonetheless, in view of the entire record, we find that Thompson has not shown a reasonable probability that Counsel’s performance affected either the jury’s verdict that he was guilty of capital murder or the jury’s recommendation of death.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 10 So. 3d 53 - Saunders v. State

2. “whether a threat to prosecute a third party was coercive depends upon whether the state had probable cause to believe that the third party had committed a crime at the time the threat was made”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Contreras v. State