Schaber v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * Appointed counsel will be held incompetent or ineffective only, if the representation is so lacking as to render the proceedings, a farce and a mockery of justice.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 454 - Morgan v. State · 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 228 - Nelson v. State

2. ““ * * It is clear from these opinions that the term “effective” has been used by the Supreme Court to describe a procedural requirement, as contrasted with a standard of skill. The Court has never held that an accused is entitled to representation by a lawyer meeting a designated aptitude test. It has never used the term to refer to the quality of the service rendered by a lawyer. The Court has clearly established that an indigent accused is entitled to counsel, if he wants one, despite his inability to pay for the service; that appointed counsel must have reasonable opportunity to prepare for his task of defense; and that the lawyer so appointed must have no divergent interest. But the Court has not itself undertaken, nor has it imposed upon the inferior federal courts, the duty of appraising the quality of a defense.’ [Mitchell v. United States] 259 F.2d at 789-790. i¡¡ if %¡ ifc ‘We think the term “effective assistance” — the courts’ construction of the constitutional requirement for the assistance of counsel — does not relate to the quality of the service rendered by a trial lawyer or to the decisions he makes in the normal course of a criminal case; except that, if his conduct is so incompetent as to deprive his client of a trial in any real sense — render the trial a mockery and a farce is one descriptive expression, — the accused must have another trial, or rather, more accurately, is still entitled to a trial.’ 259 F.2d at 793. % ífs íjs ifc if; 'We interpret the righ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beasley v. United States · 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 1 - Gentry v. Russell

3. “Where the defense is substantially weakened because of the unawareness on the part of defense counsel of a rule of law basic to the case, the accused is not given the effective representation guaranteed him by the Constitution. People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460 , 34 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 386 P.2d 487 (1963) (Traynor, J.) 233 F.Supp. at 178 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beasley v. United States · 302 F. Supp. 1011 - Brizendine v. Swenson