Wickline v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate ·

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 38 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 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), a violation of the right to effective assistance' of counsel has two components: 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. Id. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . Review of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and requires that courts “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at 689 , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . To demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient, a “defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688 , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . To establish prejudice, he “must show that there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694 , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whiting v. Burt

2. “First, the court must determine whether there is a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner’s claim and with which the petitioner failed to comply. [Maupin, 785 F.2d] at 138. “Second, the court must decide whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction.” Id. Third, the court must determine whether the state procedural rule “is an adequate and independent state ground on which the state can rely to foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “A procedural rule is adequate only when it is firmly established and regularly followed at the time it was applied .... [and is] an independent basis for disposition of a case if the state courts actually relied on the procedural bar.” Williams v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 684, 693 (6th Cir.2001). Finally, if the court answers the first three questions in the affirmative, it will not review the procedurally defaulted claim unless the petitioner can show cause for not following the procedural rule and actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation. Maupin, 785 F.2d at 138-39 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 267 F. Supp. 2d 768 - Franklin v. Anderson

3. “A defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Bagley