Watson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Zannino · Cullen v. Pinholster · Cullen v. Pinholster · United States v. Angiulo
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]nly when counsel's strategy was 'so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made it.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”
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.