Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 FSUPP2D 209 - Padilla v. Keane

Padilla v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
October 2018
most recently cited

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 · Hill v. Lockhart · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Picard v. Connor · Kimmelman v. Morrison

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “gauge the likelihood that a particular defendant would have chosen to face trial if he had been provided more accurate information from counsel”: (1) whether the record supports a finding that the defendant pled voluntarily; (2) the specific circumstances surrounding a defendant's decision; and (3) whether a defendant has provided any new evidence to suggest that he would in fact have acted differently but for his attorney’s flawed advice. Id. at 216-17. With respect to the first factor, the district court noted the petitioner”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where a defendant ... has explicitly stated in his allocution that he fully understands the consequences of his plea and that he has chosen to plead guilty after a thorough consultation with his attorney, a district court on habeas review may rely on the defendant's sworn statements and hold him to them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Second Circuit has suggested that when the evidence of a defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, the burden of demonstrating prejudice ... is virtually insurmountable.” Id. The third factor also weighed against a finding of prejudice, as the district court noted”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.