Moncla v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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. ““establish the two essential elements of ineffective assistance of counsel enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 (1984); [citation omitted]. Those elements, as recognized by this court, are: (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, considering all the circumstances and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been more favorable to the defendant. [Citation omitted.] In considering the first element, [Rowland’s] trial and appellate counsel enjoy a strong presumption that their conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. Thus, we are highly deferential in scrutinizing their conduct and make every effort to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.” Moncla v. State, 285 Kan. 826, 831-32 , 176 P.3d 954 (2008).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Rowland v. State

2. ““Some of the hair found at the scene belonged to the [murder victim]. So long as a question remained as to the source of the remaining hair and other substances found at the scene, Moncla’s trial counsel was free to argue Moncla’s theory that someone else committed the murder. That defense would have been compromised had DNA testing identified Monda as the source of these items found at the scene. Thus, the decision not to move the court for testing maybe reasonably characterized as ‘a tactical decision and not a deficient one.’ [Citations omitted.] We defer to decisions of trial counsel on matters of reasonable trial strategy.” 285 Kan. at 837-38 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 42 Kan. App. 2d 522 - LaPOINTE v. State

3. “"(1) whether the motion alleges facts which do not appear in the original record which, if true, would entitle [the movant] to relief; (2) whether the motion adequately identifies readily available witnesses whose testimony would support these new facts and demonstrate that [the movant] should receive a new trial; and (3) whether [the movant's] newly discovered evidence could have been produced at trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence." 285 Kan. at 840, 176 P.3d 954 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Beauclair v. State