Dodd v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Many of the grounds often asserted to sustain lack of effective assistance of counsel do not justify a hearing or entitle a petitioner to relief. Of such character are contentions as to the `competence of counsel.' See Kennedy v. United States, (5 Cir., 1958) 259 F.2d 883, 886 , cert. den. 359 U.S. 994 , 79 S.Ct. 1126 , 3 L.Ed.2d 982 ; the `quality of a defense' or matters of `counsel's judgment, Mitchell v. United States (supra 259 F.2d [787] at 794); `general statements expressing dissatisfaction with trial results,' Frand v. United States, (10 Cir., 1961) 289 F.2d 693, 694 ; or `a matter of trial strategy,' McDonald v. United States, (9 Cir., 1960) 282 F.2d 737, 740, 741 . "To justify the vacation of a criminal judgment it seems clear that the showing at the hearing must be that the `attorney's conduct was so incompetent that it made the trial a farce,' Black v. United States, (9 Cir., 1959) 269 F.2d 38, 42 ; cert. den. 361 U.S. 938 , 80 S.Ct. 379 , 4 L.Ed.2d 357 ; Latimer v. Cranor, (9 Cir., 1954) 214 F.2d 926 ; (habeas corpus); Mitchell v. United States (supra). Washington v. United States, (9 Cir., 1962) 297 F.2d 342 ; cert. den. 370 U.S. 949 , 82 S.Ct. 1597 , 8 L.Ed.2d 815 , requires a showing that the trial was a `farce and mockery of justice, shocking to the conscience of the court.' (297 P.2d p. 344); to the same effect Stanley v. United States, (9 Cir., 1957) 239 F.2d 765 . "Kennedy v. United States, (5 Cir., 1958) 259 F.2d 883 ; cert. den. 359 U.S. 994 , 79 S.Ct.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Calland v. United States · 208 So. 2d 506 - Nelson v. State

2. ““A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. “A motion for such relief may be made at any time. “Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate. “A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing. “The sentencin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matysek v. United States

3. “"His present counsel, appointed by the District Court, contends that because trial counsel did not appeal, trial counsel did not give the defendant the `effective assistance' to which he was entitled. The defendant says his trial counsel refused to appeal because the defendant could not pay him a fee. But such a refusal, in the circumstances of this case, is not a ground for vacating the sentence. "It has been said that `failure to appeal may not be excused upon a mere showing of neglect of counsel.' Dennis v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195 . Perhaps that statement is too broad. We need not now decide whether failure to appeal would be a denial of effective assistance, and would open a conviction to `collateral attack' under § 2255, if there were plain reversible error in the trial. There was no such plain error in this trial."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 208 So. 2d 506 - Nelson v. State