Anderson v. Sirmons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 2 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a defendant challenges a death sentence such as the one at issue in this case, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. In making this determination, a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. Some of the factual findings will have been unaffected by the errors, and factual findings that were affected will have been affected in different ways. Some errors will have had a pervasive effect on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, altering the entire evidentiary picture, and some will have had an isolated, trivial effect. Moreover, a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support. Taking the unaffected findings as a given, and taking due account of the effect of the errors on the remaining findings, a court making the prejudice inquiry must ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Welch v. Workman · Welch v. Workman

2. “e An ineffective assistance claim has a performance component and a prejudice component. The components are mixed questions of fact and law. A court does not have to approach the inquiry by addressing performance first and prejudice second. A court does not have to address both components if the appellant makes an insufficient showing on one. If a court determines it is easier to dispose of the claim because sufficient prejudice is lacking, the court may do so. ® The performance component -_ to show that trial counsel's performance was deficient, the appellant must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning at an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, considering all the cireumstances as of the time of counsel's conduct; - judicial serutiny of trial counsel's performance must be highly deferential. A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; - trial counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. A court must directly assess a particular decision not to investigate for reasonableness under all the cireumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments. ® The prejudice component - a court shall not set aside the sentence if trial counsel's deficient performance had no effect on the sentence. The appellant must affirmat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eaton v. State

3. ““The sentencing stage is the most critical phase of a death penalty case. Any competent counsel knows the importance of thoroughly investigating and presenting mitigating evidence.” Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1180 (10th Cir.2001). To perform adequately in a capital case, trial counsel must undertake “ ‘to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by the prosecutor.’ ” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases 11.4.1(C) (1989) [hereinafter 1989 Guidelines]); see also ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases 10.7(A) (2003) [hereinafter 2003 Guidelines]. Counsel should consider, inter alia, medical history, educational history, social and family history, religious and cultural influences, and employment. See 2003 Guidelines 10.7, Commentary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richie v. Sirmons