Baxter v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 176 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 194 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Bell Warden v. Cone (2002), Knight v. State (1981)
5 federal appellate · 176 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Wade · McMann v. Richardson · MacKenna v. Ellis · United States v. DeCoster · Moore v. United States
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 194 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Counsel should confer with his client without delay and as often as necessary to elicit matters of defense, or to ascertain that potential defenses are unavailable. Counsel should discuss fully potential strategies and tactical choices with his client. (2) Counsel should promptly advise his client of his rights and take all actions necessary to preserve them.... (3) Counsel must conduct appropriate investigations, both factual and legal, to determine what matters of defense can be developed.... This means that in most cases a defense attorney, or his agent, should interview not only his own witnesses but also those that the Government intends to call, when they are accessible. The investigation should always include efforts to secure information in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities. And, of course, the duty to investigate also requires adequate legal research.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brimmer v. State · Cooper v. State“[T]he assistance of counsel required under the Sixth Amendment is counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance. It is a violation of this standard for defense counsel to deprive a criminal defendant of a substantial defense by his own ineffectiveness or incompetence.... Defense counsel must perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law and must conscientiously protect his client’s interests, undeflected by conflicting considerations ....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. State · Pylant v. State“whether the advice given or the service rendered by the attorney is within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ambrose v. Dutton · Goosby v. State
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.