Raether v. Meisner’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Hall v. Washington · Williams v. Washington · United States Hampton v. Leibach
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this battle of credibility, counsel’s failure to make use of the witness’s prior statements doomed Raether’s prospects from the beginning. Had counsel cross-examined the witnesses adequately, he could have cast significant doubt on [the alleged victim’s] and [the alleged victim’s friend’s] testimony, which was ripe for impeaching. His failure to do so is all the more striking because counsel told the jury he would undermine the witnesses’ credibility but never followed through on this suggestion.... [A]ll counsel needed to do was undermine the credibility of the state’s two witnesses. No other evidence existed on which to convict Raether. Counsel’s failure to use available tools to' undermine this credibility resulted in prejudice. Because of counsel’s substandard performance, Raether’s trial did not reliably test whether he did as he was accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harrison v. Tegels
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.