Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, appellant must prove that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Appellant also must prove that counsel's failure to function was so prejudicial as to deprive him of a fair trial. A fair trial is denied when the conviction or sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that rendered the result unreliable. (Citation omitted.) To meet his burden, appellant must overcome by strong and convincing evidence a presumption that counsel has prepared and executed his client's defense effectively. (Citation omitted.)"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Hunter v. State

2. ““It is the compilation of errors and omissions by counsel which creates the necessity for reversal in this case. Counsel’s failure to interview eyewitnesses to the crime, standing alone, does not constitute ineffective representation. Crisp v. State (1979), [271] Ind. [534], 394 N.E.2d 115 . Counsel’s failure to subpoena witnesses or present their testimony also may not violate the Sixth Amendment. McCann v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1293 ; Roberts v. State (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 803 . However, while each error of counsel individually may not be sufficient to prove ineffective representation, an accumulation of such failures may amount to ineffective assistance. Shull v. State (1981), Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 1 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Indiana

3. ““In addition to revealing substandard representation, the record graphically portrays a breakdown in the adversarial process which casts substantial doubt on the reliability of Williams’ trial, as required by Strickland . Williams’ fate was determined before he stepped into the courtroom on the first day of his trial. Counsel was so ineffective as to deprive Williams of even an opportunity to present a defense, a central right in our criminal justice system.””

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