Ex Parte Duffy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

321 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 330 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Experience has taught us that in most instances where the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised, the record on direct appeal is simply not in a shape, perhaps because of the very alleged ineffectiveness below, that would adequately reflect the failings of trial counsel. Indeed, in a case such as this, where the alleged derelictions primarily are errors of omission de hors the record rather than commission revealed in the trial record, collateral attack may be ... the vehicle by which a thorough and detailed examination of alleged ineffectiveness may be developed and spread upon a record.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Jackson v. State · Hernandez v. State

2. ““Fully stated, the test for effective counsel is ‘counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance,’ McKenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592 [at 590] (5 Cir.196[0]) as quoted approvingly by the Court in Caraway v. State, 417 S.W.2d 159, 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Moore v. State · Villarreal v. State

3. ““The very vice of the procedure followed by trial counsel was his failure to properly investigate and develop facts which could have or would have given rise to the defense in question [insanity]. Also, since the facts remained uncovered and undetected, there is no way of telling whether those facts, if fully developed, would or would not have established the defenses in dispute. If the record on appeal is defective or incomplete, it is due solely to the neglect of trial counsel. At any rate, the test of whether a criminal defendant was accorded an adequate legal defense does not depend on the potential success of the defense omitted, but rather on the consideration whether the defense withdrawn from the case was a crucial one. .. In such circumstances we may not save the judgment by speculating whether the defense would have been successful, regardless of the apparent strength of the prosecution’s evidence, a trial in which only one side of the case is heard is ‘fundamentally unfair’ and hence constitutes a denial of due process of law. Such a conviction cannot stand.” People v. Corona, supra, 145 Cal.Rptr. at 917-918 (citations omitted). 28”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Damian v. State · Ex Parte Ybarra