407 So. 2d 907 - Ford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(t)here was abundant evidence apart from the confession, some by eyewitnesses, to place him at the scene as a participant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ford v. Strickland · Ford v. Strickland

2. “[W]e believe the following four-step process ... provides a means to discover a true miscarriage of justice .... First, the specific omission or overt act upon which the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based must be detailed in the appropriate pleading. Second, the defendant has the burden to show that this specific omission or overt act was a substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel .... Third, the defendant has the burden to show that this specific, serious deficiency, when considered under the circumstances of the individual case, was substantial enough to demonstrate a prejudice to the defendant to the extent that there is a likelihood that the deficient conduct affected the outcome of the court proceedings. In the case of appellate counsel, this means the deficiency must concern an issue which is error affecting the outcome, not simply harmless error. This requirement that a defendant has the burden to show prejudice is the rule in the majority of other jurisdictions. Fourth, in the event a defendant does show a substantial deficiency and presents a prima facie showing of prejudice, the state still has an opportunity to rebut these assertions by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no prejudice in fact.”

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

3. “[These claims] were all matters known at the conclusion of the trial which could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal. Accordingly, collateral attack ... was properly determined by the trial court not to be an appropriate remedy ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ford v. Strickland