Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. “ ‘As a matter of trial strategy, counsel could well decide not to call family members as witnesses because family members can be easily impeached for bias.’ Bergmann v. McCaughtry, 65 F.3d 1372, 1380 (7th Cir.1995). “ ‘Once counsel conducts a reasonable investigation of law and facts in a particular case, his strategic decisions are “virtually unchallengeable.” [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ] at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 [ (1984) ]. Tactical or reasonable professional judgments are not deficient but a failure to investigate a material matter due to inattention may be deficient. When the claim is that counsel failed to present a sufficient mitigating case during sentencing, the inquiry “is not whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case” but “whether the investigation supporting counsel’s decision not to introduce mitigating evidence ... was itself reasonable.” See Wiggins [v. Smith ], 539 U.S. [510] at 523, 123 S.Ct. 2527 [(2003)] (internal citations omitted).’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 So. 3d 1063 - State of Alabama v. Larry Reynold Smith. · 198 So. 3d 530 - Larry Dunaway v. State of Alabama.

2. “'[T]he mere existence of a potential alternative defense theory is not enough to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to present that theory.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brownfield v. State · Clark v. State

3. “"The purpose of ineffectiveness review is not to grade counsel's performance. See Strickland [v. Washington] , [ 466 U.S. 668 ,] 104 S.Ct. [2052] at 2065 [ (1984) ] ; see also White v. Singletary , 972 F.2d 1218 , 1221 (11th Cir. 1992) ('We are not interested in grading lawyers' performances; we are interested in whether the adversarial process at trial, in fact, worked adequately.'). We recognize that '[r]epresentation is an art, and an act or omission that is unprofessional in one case may be sound or even brilliant in another.' Strickland , 104 S.Ct. at 2067 . Different lawyers have different gifts; this fact, as well as differing circumstances from case to case, means the range of what might be a reasonable approach at trial must be broad. To state the obvious: the trial lawyers, in every case, could have done something more or something different. So, omissions are inevitable. But, the issue is not what is possible or 'what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.' Burger v. Kemp , 483 U.S. 776 , 107 S.Ct. 3114 , 3126, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brownfield v. State