Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 412 F.3d 577 - United States v. Herrera

United States v. Herrera’s Empirical Analysis

412 F.3d 577 · 2005

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. McKnight (2009), United States v. Montes (2010)

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

120200520102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Glover v. United States · Teague v. Scott · United States v. Herrera · United States v. Grammas

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, [a defendant] must demonstrate that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. This court has described that standard as “requiring that counsel research relevant facts and law, or make an informed decision that certain avenues will not be fruitful.” Second, [a defendant] must also prove that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s substandard performance. “[T]o prove prejudice, [a defendant] must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““One of the most important duties of an attorney representing a criminal defendant is advising the defendant about whether he should plead guilty. An attorney fulfills this obligation by informing the defendant about the relevant circumstances and the likely consequences of a plea. Apprising a defendant about his exposure under the sentencing guidelines is necessarily part of this process. A defendant cannot make an intelligent choice about whether to accept a plea offer unless he fully understands the risks of proceeding to trial. ‘Failing to properly advise the defendant of the maximum sentence that he could receive falls below the objective standard required by Strickland.’ ””
    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.