State v. Braswell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 594 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 600 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”

   140 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 178 N.C. App. 337 - State v. Laney · 156 N.C. App. 335 - State v. Morris

2. “[t]he constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him is a personal privilege which he may waive expressly or by a failure to assert it in apt time . . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 N.C. App. 277 - State v. English · 197 N.C. App. 630 - State v. Mobley

3. ““Every violation of a constitutional right is not prejudicial. Some constitutional errors are deemed harmless in the setting of a particular case, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, where the appellate court can declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 280 , 185 S.E. 2d 677, 682 (1972). The right to be present at all critical stages of the prosecution is subject to harmless error analysis. Rushen v. Spam, [464] U.S. [114], 78 L.Ed. 2d 267 , 272 n.2 (1984). We believe that denial of a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him is subject to the same harmless error analysis. That is particularly true when the alleged denial consists of the voir dire examination, in the presence of defendant’s counsel, of a witness for the State who substantially repeats his voir dire testimony at trial. It is difficult to imagine any way in which defendant was prejudiced by his failure to attend the hearing. After examining the record and assuming error arguendo we conclude that any error which may have resulted from defendant’s failure to attend the hearing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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