Cannon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), “(t)o prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, [Appellant] bears the burden of showing both that trial counsel was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. (Cit.)” [Cit.] In order to establish prejudice, “a defendant (must) show ‘a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome that, but for counsel’s alleged unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ (Cits.)” [Cit.] When reviewing an ineffective assistance claim, “we accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts. (Cits.)” [Cit.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gandy v. State

2. “As a rule of both constitutional law and Georgia statutory law, a prosecutor may not make any comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify at trial. [Cits.] Generally, comments made by the State regarding the defendant’s decision not to testify may constitute reversible error if (1) the prosecutor’s manifest intention was to comment on the accused’s failure to testify, or (2) the remark was of such a character that a jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the accused’s failure to testify.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 307 Ga. App. 890 - Schenck v. State

3. “[i]t is well established that the system by which juries are selected does not include the right of any party to select certain jurors but to permit parties to protect themselves against prejudice by allowing them to exclude unacceptable jurors. Defendant has no vested right to a particular juror.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryant v. State