Hill v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.3d 308 · 2005
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Broom v. Mitchell (2006), White v. Mitchell (2005)
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Estelle v. McGuire · State v. Bradley
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even granting [defendant] the assumption that his relationship with his lawyers was not what it should have been, he has not shown how that failing affected the advocacy they provided him. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (‘in evaluating Sixth Amendment [right-to-counsel] claims, the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused’s relationship with his lawyer as such’) (quotation marks omitted). [Defendant] has given us no explanation how additional meetings with his counsel, or longer meetings with his counsel, would have led to new or better theories of advocacy or otherwise would have created a ‘reasonable probability’ of a different outcome. Under these circumstances, he cannot establish an essential prerequisite for relief — a showing of prejudice — and accordingly the claim cannot succeed.” Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d 308, 324-25 (6th Cir.2005).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Evans v. Wall · Lenz v. Washington“In the context of a death sentence, the question of prejudice turns on “whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer—in-cluding an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence—would conclude that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n order to establish prejudice, the new evidence that a habeas petitioner presents must differ in a substantial way- — in strength and subject matter— from the evidence actually presented at sentencing.”
2 later decisions 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.