Vance v. Lehman’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 119 · 1995
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Johnson v. Rosemeyer (1997), United States v. Shabazz (2001)
11 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Davis v. Alaska · Cuyler v. Sullivan · United States v. Cronic · West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'More specifically, the defendant must identify something that counsel chose to do or not do, as to which he had conflicting duties, and must show that the course taken was influenced by that conflict,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The right to the effective assistance of counsel is ... the right of the accused to require the prosecution’s case to survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing. When a true adversarial criminal trial has been conducted — even if defense counsel may have made demonstrable errors — the kind of testing envisioned by the Sixth Amendment has occurred... If the defendant has no representation of any kind, his conviction is per se invalid. The same is true if, for any reason, the defendant’s counsel is prevented from assisting him during a critical stage of the proceeding. “Similarly, if counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing [by foregoing cross-examination of the prosecutor’s witnesses], then there has been a denial of the Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable.” Another situation which would warrant the application of a per se rule finding a violation of the Sixth Amendment is where the defendant is represented by someone with little or no legal training who is masquerading as an attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The courts have consistently looked to the licensing authorities of the legal profession to determine in circumstances of this kind the boundaries of the per se exception to the Strickland rule. If a lawyer is authorized by those authorities to practice law, his or her performance on a criminal defendant’s behalf is acceptable for Sixth Amendment purposes so long as the Strickland criteria are not met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. McCroy
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.