Young v. Sirmons’s Empirical Analysis
551 F.3d 942 · 2008
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Hooks v. Workman (2012), Byrd v. Workman (2011)
15 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Townsend v. Sain · United States v. Cronic · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ujnlike the defendant in Schriro , who waived his right to present mitigating evidence, thereafter refused to allow his counsel to present any type of mitigating evidence on his behalf, and all but asked the trial court to sentence him to death, Young simply chose to forego the presentation of testimony from the handful of friends and family members that his trial counsel had lined up to testify. Further, as the OCCA expressly found, ‘Young did not waive mitigation, but rather opted to introduce it through stipulation.” Thus, we conclude that Young’s decision to forego live mitigation witnesses and rely on the written stipulation of mitigating evidence does not prevent him, in the context of these federal habeas proceedings, from establishing prejudice under the second prong of the Strickland test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]e find it impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what [the defendant] would have done had his trial counsel investigated and prepared to present all of the available mitigating evidence that [the defendant] now points to. In particular, we do not believe that [his] decision to [forgo] the live testimony of his friends and family members allows us to accurately predict what he would have done had his trial counsel planned to present mitigating testimony from [certain experts].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“whether [the petitioner] had satisfied the standard outlined in OCCA Rule 3.11 (B)(3)(b)(i),” the state rule governing whether a court should grant an evidentiary hearing to further develop a defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Id. Consequently, we stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Byrd v. Workman
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.