551 So. 2d 435 - Morrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake as been committed.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hamilton v. State · Giles v. State

2. “"With regard to McKinnon's representation of Morrison at the punishment-fixing and sentencing phases of his trial, we find that the observations of the court in Clark v. Dugger , 834 F.2d 1561 , 1568 (11th Cir. 1987), are appropriate: "`The failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of possible mitigating evidence may render counsel's assistance ineffective. Lightbourne v. Dugger , 829 F.2d 1012 , 1025 (11th Cir. 1987); Thompson v. Wainwright , 787 F.2d 1447 , 1450 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1042 , 107 S.Ct. 1986 , 95 L.Ed.2d 825 (1987). "After a sufficient investigation, however, `counsel may make a reasonable strategic judgment to present less than all possible available evidence in mitigation.'" Lightbourne , 829 F.2d at 1025 (quoting Mitchell v. Kemp , 762 F.2d 886 , 889 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1026 , 107 S.Ct. 3248 , 97 L.Ed.2d 774 (1987) and Stanley v. Zant , 697 F.2d 955 , 965 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, sub nom. [ Stanley v. Kemp ,] 467 U.S. 1219 , 104 S.Ct. 2667 , 81 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984)). In essence, "[c]ounsel has no absolute duty to present mitigating character evidence." Id . (quoting Mitchell , 762 F.2d at 889 ). [Counsel] conducted a reasonable investigation to determine the availability of appropriate mitigating evidence and simply made a tactical decision to not present some of the available mitigating evidence. In this circuit, [counsel's] decision is "accorded a strong presumption of correctness which is `virtually unchal”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State · Pierce v. State

3. “Id. (quoting Sinclair v. Wainwright, 814 F.2d 1516, 1519 (11th Cir.1987) and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Given the alternatives . . . faced, [counsel's] handling of the penalty phase was not unreasonable. See Stanley, 697 F.2d at 958-70 . We therefore conclude that there has been no showing of ineffective assistance nor prejudice to defendant in the way trial counsel prepared and tried [this] case.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State · Pierce v. State