Jones v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
258 F.3d 893 · 2001
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Lindh v. Murphy · Schlossberg v. Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury · Nagy v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant must affirmatively show prejudice. It is not sufficient for a defendant to show that the error had some `conceivable effect' on the result of the proceeding.... The defendant must show that because of counsel's error, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.' A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lawyers are not perfect, and the Constitution does not guarantee a perfect trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.