Wycoff v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2009
4 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Safir v. Kreps · Taylor v. State · State v. Hall · Harris v. Housewright · State v. Love
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the prosecutor improperly cross-examined defense witness Cain, an inmate, without factual predicate and made excuse for the missing predicate in closing argument; (2) the prosecutor’s examination of the victim’s wife was designed to inflame and prejudice the jury. (3) the prosecutor examined two prosecution witnesses regarding threats without factual predicate; (4) the prosecutor used false and misleading testimony in an in-court test regarding the presence of blood on a jacket; (5) the court and counsel by stipulation improperly limited defense witness Tres-sler’s testimony in return for the availability of Tressler to Wycoff for trial; (6) his counsel acted unprofessionally during readback of testimony and failed to object to the court’s admonishment. (7) his counsel failed to object at trial and failed to appeal as to other prosecu-torial misconduct; (8) his counsel failed to interview and call witnesses with information favorable to his defense; (9) his counsel failed to request an alibi instruction; and (10)Wycoff’s counsel labored under a conflict of interest in their concurrent representation of a possible prosecution witness and did not inform the petitioner or the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wycoff v. Nix“We are aware of the possibility of prejudice to criminal defendants in concurrent representation situations. See Nichol v. State, 309 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1981); Cosgrove v. State, 304 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Iowa 1981). If a petitioner has established that his attorney had an attorney-client relationship with an adverse party or witness, he need only show a substantial possibility of a conflict of interest to claim a denial of effective assistance of counsel. Cosgrove, 304 N.W.2d at 187 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Duncan“Issues that have been raised, litigated, and adjudicated on direct appeal cannot be re-litigated in a posteonviction proceeding. If issues have not been presented on direct appeal, the petitioner must meet the burden of showing “sufficient reason” for the failure to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wyldes v. Hundley
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.