Pineda v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 9 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It has been definitely held that the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, secures the right of an indigent state prisoner to the assistance of counsel in a case of this kind. As this Court has recently written, more than a formal appointment of counsel is required. There must be effective assistance of counsel. Effective assistance does not mean that a defendant is entitled to have the best counsel appointed, or any particular counsel, but it does mean that he must have such assistance as will assure him due process of law. As we said in MacKenna v. Ellis , 280 F.2d 592 , 599 (5th Cir. 1960), `We interpret the right to counsel as the right to effective counsel. We interpret counsel to mean not errorless counsel, and not counsel judged ineffective by hindsight, but counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance.'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Odom v. United States · 371 So. 2d 429 - Jacobs v. State

2. “It is not enough to assume that counsel thus precipitated into the case thought there was no defense, and exercised their best judgment in proceeding to trial without preparation. Neither they nor the court could say what a prompt and thorough-going investigation might disclose as to the facts. No attempt was made to investigate. * * * The record indicates that the appearance was rather pro forma than zealous and active * * *. Under the circumstances disclosed, we hold that defendants were not accorded the right of counsel in any substantial sense. To decide otherwise, would simply be to ignore actualities. Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 58 , 53 S.Ct. 55, 60 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bentley v. State of Florida