541 So. 2d 47 - Ex Parte Womack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . Although [defense counsel] may not have conducted an exhaustive pretrial investigation, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that his actions cannot pass constitutional muster. ". . . Although the Sixth Amendment does impose on counsel an affirmative duty to investigate, this Court is hesitant to announce any mechanical rule that makes that duty absolute. Counsel's obligation is to conduct a 'substantial investigation into each of the plausible lines of defense. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 681 , 104 S.Ct. at 2061 . "A substantial investigation is just what the term implies; it does not demand that counsel discover every shred of evidence but that a reasonable inquiry into all plausible defense be made."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 624 So. 2d 700 - Miles v. State · 659 So. 2d 205 - Moore v. State

2. “'[A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.' [ Strickland v. Washington ,] 466 U.S. [668] at 689, 104 S.Ct. [2052] at 2065 [(1984)]. Because of the diverse methodologies employed by defense counsel and the broad range of opinion about how to best address a particular situation, the burden is upon the defendant to overcome the presumption that the challenged action constitutes 'sound trial strategy.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 590 So. 2d 369 - Ex Parte Duren · 708 So. 2d 206 - Lane v. State

3. “". . . The question is whether 'there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' [ 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 .] Such a consideration necessarily assumes that the decision maker is reasonable and impartial and conscientiously applies the proper standard, the Court noted."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 602 So. 2d 465 - Kilpatrick v. State · 590 So. 2d 369 - Ex Parte Duren