Clark v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 4 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[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
   e.g. Durr v. Mitchell · 705 F. Supp. 2d 773 - Loza v. Mitchell

2. “[t]he state court was also reasonable in determining that Clark had failed to demonstrate prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to introduce evidence from a neuropsychologist or pharmacologist at his suppression hearing or at trial. Clark’s defense team introduced evidence at Clark’s suppression hearing from a psychiatrist who concluded that Clark was suffering from depression, suicidal tendencies, and brain impairments that would have made Clark less able to understand his choices and to resist pressure from other individuals. It thus was reasonable for the state court to conclude that new information sought to he introduced by Clark about his drug addiction and brain disorder did not differ in a substantial way from the evidence actually presented at the suppression hearing and, accordingly, that Clark could not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to present such evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Tran v. Colson

3. “medical history, (mental and physical illness or injury, alcohol and drug use, birth trauma, and developmental delays); educational history (achievement, performance and behavior) special educational needs (including cognitive limitations and learning disabilities); military history (type and length of service, conduct, special training); employment training history (including skills and performance, and barriers to employa-bility); family and social history (including physical, sexual or emotional abuse); prior adult and juvenile record; prior correctional experience (including conduct on supervision and in the institution, education or training, and clinical services); and religious and cultural influences.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 396 F. Supp. 2d 837 - Mason v. Mitchell