Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Unlike the State, the petitioner does not believe that in order to prevail, it is necessary that the record contain “objective” evidence that he was prejudiced, that is, that he would have accepted the plea agreement offered by the State. He endorses the position enunciated in People v. Pollard, supra, 282 Cal.Rptr. [588] at 594 [ (1991) ]: “[t]he defendant must show that but for the failure to convey the offer or to misadvise concerning the law, it is reasonably probable that the defendant would have accepted the offer.” On the other hand, it is enough, the petitioner asserts, that “counsel’s failure to inform the petitioner of the consequences of going to trial precluded him from making a knowing and intelligent decision to accept the offer.” In other words, it is his inability to make an informed choice that is the critical fact, not whether, on an objective basis, he would have reached a different conclusion. In either case, the petitioner maintains that we need not look for “objective” evidence of his intention. All that is required is that the totality of the evidence supports an inference that the outcome “may well” have been different had he been fully and accurately informed. There are cases that eschew “subjective, self-serving” statements by a defendant, instead looking for, and relying on, objective evidence that the defendant would have acted differently upon being apprised adequately of the situation .... Other courts have refused to characterize the evidence re”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 732 F. Supp. 2d 527 - Merzbacher v. Shearin

2. “This raises the question of the appropriate remedy for that incompetence. In United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 , 101 S.Ct. 665, 668 , 66 L.Ed.2d 564, 568 (1981), the Supreme Court pointed out that relief from a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel should be tailored to fit the circumstances of the case. A new trial is not the appropriate remedy since the violation did not impact the fairness of the trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 134 Md. App. 528 - State v. Gross

3. “no case or statute that imposes such a requirement, and we think it unfair and unwise to require litigants to speculate as to how a particular judge would have acted under particular circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 733 So. 2d 963 - Cottle v. State