State v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]hen a possible conflict exists, but the trial court is not advised of the possibility, the limited presumption set forth in Cuyler applies, and the defendant, in order to establish a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. See Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348 . On the other hand, we hold that where the trial court is advised of tire possibility of a conflict by either the defendant or the State, the court is required to initiate an inquiry to insure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not violated. In this instance, a showing that there is an actual conflict of interest will result in automatic reversal. See Holloway, 435 U.S. at 489 . Prejudice to the defendant is presumed, and reversal of the defendant’s conviction is automatic.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Stovall · 30 Kan. App. 2d 639 - State v. Robertson

2. “"In the normal case where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily identifiable.... But in a case of joint representation of conflicting interests ... [i]t may be possible in some cases to identify from the record the prejudice resulting from an attorney's failure to undertake certain trial tasks, but ... to assess the impact of a conflict of interests on the attorney's options, tactics, and decisions in plea negotiations would be virtually impossible. Thus, an inquiry into a claim of harmless error here would require, unlike most cases, unguided speculation." 435 U.S. at 490-91 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re D.A. · 40 Kan. App. 2d 878 - In Re Da

3. ““The judge must consider the whole picture not just the desires of the parties. The balancing of interests becomes extremely involved. If a defense attorney’s scope of cross-examination of a key prosecution witness is restricted to avoid possible violation of the attorney-client privileges of the witness, then the defendant has major claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of a fair trial. If the examination is not restricted, then the witness’ attorney-client privilege may be violated. It is a significant public policy that individuals be free to disclose confidential information to their attorneys without fear of subsequent examination on and disclosure of those communications. The judge has a duty to maintain the integrity of the administration of the justice system.” 245 Kan. at 562 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 Kan. App. 2d 756 - State v. Sweat