Adams v. Bertrand’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.3d 428 · 2006
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · 153 Wis. 2d 493 - State v. Poellinger · Vonaire T. Washington v. Judy Smith, Warden, Oshkosh Correctional Institution · Kevin Hough v. Rondle Anderson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we presume that counsel’s actions fall within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and defer to strategic decision-making by a trial attorney. Despite this weighty deference, we nonetheless must carefully cohsider whether the attorney brought to bear the skill and knowledge that allows for a proper adversarial testing process, considering all the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Duncan“by not locating and talking to [Shawn] Demain, who could have conceivably served as a witness on Adams's behalf.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Henley“a reasonable probability that the outcome of Adams's trial would be different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Henley
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.