Wallace v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Reversal for ineffective assistance of counsel is appropriate in cases where a defendant shows both (a) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (b) that the deficient performance so prejudiced defendant as to deprive him of a fair trial. A claim of ineffective assistance must identify the claimed errors of counsel, so that the court may determine whether, in light of all circumstances, the counsel’s actions were outside the range of professionally competent assistance. The proper measure of attorney performance is reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. It shall be strongly presumed that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and should not be exercised through the distortion of hindsight. Isolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics do not necessarily amount to ineffectiveness of counsel. If deficient performance of counsel can be proven, defendant must further show a reasonable probability that it altered the outcome of the ease.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 858 F. Supp. 865 - Spinks v. McBride

2. “There is a strong presumption that counsel is competent. Stewart v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 1230, 1283 . Isolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics do not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance. Smith v. State (1987), Ind., 516 N.E.2d 1055, 1059 . The defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and, further, the defendant must show the deficient performance prejudiced his defense by errors so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial and a trial the result of which is reliable. Strick land v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , reh. denied (1984), 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 ; Lawrence v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1291, 1294 .”

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

3. “they were relieved of concern because the ultimate responsibility rested with the judge or this Court.”

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