Johnson v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.3d 234 · 2002
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
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 · United States v. Cronic · Lindh v. Murphy · Lockhart v. Fretwell
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] constructive denial of counsel occurs ... in only a very narrow spectrum of cases where the circumstances leading to counsel’s ineffectiveness are so egregious that the defendant was in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all. ... [T]he attorney’s failure must be complete.... [A] case does not come under Cronic merely because counsel failed to oppose the prosecution ... at specific points in the trial. It is not enough for the defendant to show mere shoddy representation or to prove the existence of errors, omissions, or strategic blunders by counsel. Bad lawyering, regardless of how bad, does not support the per se presumption of prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Job“[C]ourts must ‘indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’ ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coble v. Dretke
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.