Dill 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. “"1. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring a reversal of conviction requires proof (a) that the defendant's counsel's performance was 'deficient' by 'showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment,' and (b) that this deficient performance prejudiced the defendant by 'showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.' 104 [S.Ct.] at 2064. "2. '[T]he proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance.' 104 [S.Ct.] at 2064. "3. 'In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.' 104 S.Ct. at 2065 . The reasonableness of counsel's conduct must be judged on 'the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct.' 104 S.Ct. at 2066 . "4. There is 'a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.' 104 S.Ct. at 2066 . "5. In proving ineffectiveness the defendant has the burden of proof and 'must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy." ' 104 S.Ct. at 2066 . "6. Even a professionally unreasonable error by counsel 'does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. State · 512 So. 2d 811 - Self v. State

2. “"Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness. Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense counsel[,] raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's mental condition.' Loe v. United States , 545 F. Supp. 662 , 666 (E.D.Va. 1982). Walker v. Mitchell , 587 F. Supp. 1432 , 1439-40 (E.D.Va. 1984) ('If the law provides that the defendant cannot be convicted of the crime charged if he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent, and preliminary indications create reasonable grounds for suspecting that the defendant may have been so intoxicated, then counsel has a duty to make further inquiry'). 'This court does not sit to second guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel. However, when counsel's choices are uninformed because of inadequate preparation, a defendant is denied the effective assistance of c”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 570 So. 2d 727 - Saffold v. State · 791 So. 2d 383 - Payne v. State

3. ““A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring a reversal of a conviction requires proof (a) that the appellant’s counsel’s performance was deficient, by showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning, as the counsel guaranteed the appellant by the Sixth Amendment, and (b) that this deficient performance prejudiced the appellant by showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Dill v. State, 484 So.2d 491 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). In carrying the burden of establishing prejudice, the appellant must .show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington. When an appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arises from alleged errors committed by counsel in the guilty plea process, the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis is satisfied by the appellant’s establishing ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’ Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 370 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cobb v. State · 512 So. 2d 811 - Self v. State