State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · 98 Wash. 2d 53 - State v. Sherman · 33 Wash. App. 579 - State v. Russell · 42 Wash. App. 533 - State v. Sardinia · 88 Wash. 2d 394 - State v. Allan
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show, first, that counsel's performance was deficient and, second, that defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency. State v. Sardinia. 42 Wn. App. 533 , 713 P.2d 122 , review denied, 105 Wn.2d 1013 (1986). The first element is met by a showing that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; the second, by a showing that there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different". Sardinia, 42 Wn. App. at 539 . Thomas fails to meet these requirements. As to the expert witness, we will assume arguendo that a lawyer who calls an expert witness is deficient in neglecting to ascertain the witness' qualifications: thus we assume that the first Sardinia element has been satisfied here. There is, however, no showing that it made any difference. First, there simply is no showing that there was an expert who could have offered testimony helpful to Thomas. We will not infer the existence of such a person from a silent record. Second, there is no showing that any expert testimony would have helped. The fact is that Thomas was drunk. Surely the collective experience of a jury is sufficient to apprise the jurors of the effects of drunkenness. We also conclude that the trial court would have committed no prejudicial error in refusing a [ State v. ] Sherman [ 98 Wn.2d 53 , 653 P.2d 612 (1982)] instruction had”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“there simply is no showing that there was an expert who could have offered testimony helpful to Thomas”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“collective experience of a jury is sufficient to apprise the jurors of the effects of drunkenness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.