593 So. 2d 508 - Ferguson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “reasonable strategy in light of the negative aspects of the expert testimony”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Griffin v. State · 905 So. 2d 42 - Dufour v. State

2. “Although in hindsight one can speculate that a different argument may have been more effective, counsel's argument does not fall to the level of deficient performance simply because it ultimately failed to persuade the jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. State · 822 So. 2d 1243 - Gaskin v. State

3. “The primary allegation is that counsel failed to present evidence of organic brain damage to the jury. A review of the record indicates that the defendant was evaluated by three mental health experts, Doctors McClane, Afield and Ainesworth. All three men are psychiatrists. The doctors indicated that they had reviewed the case file, taken a medical and life history from the defendant, and had reviewed some materials furnished by defense counsel. While the doctors disagreed as to whether the defendant met the legal test for insanity, all three agreed that the defendant suffered from a severe mental or emotional disturbance due to amphetamine intoxication and that his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired. At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Brad Fisher, a clinical forensic psychologist, testified for the defendant. Dr. Fisher evaluated the defendant almost 15 years after the crimes occurred. He met with the defendant two times, reviewed the case file, school, prison and police records of the defendant and met with the defendant's mother and brother. Dr. Fisher testified that he did not disagree with the mental health experts who testified at the 1988 trial. He believes that the defendant suffers from toxic psychosis and did so during the crimes. His opinion is that the defendant suffered from an extreme mental disturbance and his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. The only difference in Dr. Fisher's”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State