Howard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 300 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 307 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “conclusion that an unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error ignores [the] day-to-day realities of courtroom life and undermines society's interest in the administration of justice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barritt v. State · Thompson v. State

2. “Under the standard set forth in Strickland, supra, to determine ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show first that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment. A court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Cook v. State, 361 Ark. 91 , 204 S.W.3d 532 (2005). Second, the petitioner must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the petitioner of a fair trial. Unless a petitioner makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable. The petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the fact finder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt, i.e., the decision reached would have been different absent the errors. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. See Cothren v. State, 344 Ark. 697 , 42 S.W.3d 543 (2001). The language,“the outcome of the trial,” refers not only to the finding of guilt or innocence, but to possible prejudice in the sentencing. Lasiter v. State, 290 Ark. 96 , 717 S.W.2d 198 (1986). In making a determination”

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

3. “This court has noted that experienced advocates might differ about when, or if, objections are called for since, as a matter of trial strategy, further objections from counsel may have succeeded in making the prosecutor’s comments seem more significant to the jury. Because many lawyers refrain from objecting during opening statement and closing argument, absent egregious misstatements, the failure to object |17during closing argument and opening statement is within the wide range of permissible professional legal conduct.”

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