Pate v. Holman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

104 federal appellate · 2 district · 42 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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" * * * For a petitioner to be entitled to post-conviction relief, it is not enough to show that indigency occasioned the petitioner’s inability to employ counsel or to appeal; the petitioner must show that the State deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. State action is shown when a responsible official in the State’s system of justice rejects a request for counsel or fails to take proper steps toward appointment of counsel for a convicted defendant when he has knowledge of the defendant’s indigency and desire for appellate counsel. When an accused person retains counsel on the original trial, the State may rely on the presumption that the accused’s lawyer will protect his client’s rights on appeal.” Pate v. Holman, 341 F.2d 764, 775 (5th Cir. 1965); see also McGriff v. Wainwright, 431 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1970).”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morales v. Cox · Manning v. State

2. ““[W]hen a defendant has retained counsel of his own choosing the State cannot be held to have violated the constitutional right of an indigent to counsel on appeal, unless the need for appellate counsel is brought home to the State, either by defendant’s request for appellate counsel or because a responsible State official has actual knowledge that the defendant is indigent and desires to appeal his conviction.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Copeland v. Beto · Manning v. State

3. “Where the facts are in dispute, the federal court in habeas corpus must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral proceeding. In other words a federal evidentiary hearing is required unless the state court trier of fact has after a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts. We hold that a federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant under the following circumstances: If (1) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing; (2) the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record as a whole; (3) the fact-finding pro&edure employed by the state court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence; (5) the material facts were not adequately developed at the state court hearing; or (6) for any reason it appears that the state trier of fact did not afford the habeas applicant a full and fair fact hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hayton v. Egeler