Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 F.3d 781 - Motley v. Collins

Motley v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

3 F.3d 781 · 1993

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
April 1995
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Santosky v. Kramer · Townsend v. Sain · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “--in that it may have militated in favor of a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial; (b) calling Motley as a witness after the State rested with evidence that, according to Motley, was insufficient to support a conviction; (c) being generally unfamiliar with capital sentencing law--particularly, the admissibility of unadjudicated extraneous offenses; and (d) failing to investigate and introduce evidence of Motley's brain damage during the punishment phase of the trial. 13 The district court rejected Motley's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. It first reasoned,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “). But this observation establishes, at most, that Motley's trial counsel was deficient. Motley has not satisfactorily demonstrated a reasonable probability that, had his trial counsel corrected any misapprehension on the part of jurors during voir dire, the result of the sentencing proceeding would have been different. Specifically, he has not shown how a more favorable definition of”
    1 later decision 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.