Johnson v. Secretary, DOC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Even -without the deference due under § 2254, the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), standard for judging the performance of counsel “is a most deferential one.” Harrington, 131 S.Ct. at 788 . When combined with the extra layer of deference that § 2254 provides, the result is double deference and the question becomes whether “there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Id., 131 S.Ct. at 788. Double deference is doubly difficult for a petitioner to overcome, and it will be a rare case in which an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was denied on the merits in state court is found to merit relief in a federal habeas proceeding.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections · Reaves v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

2. “The picture [that Johnson’s trial lawyer] painted for the jury was of Johnson having cold and uncaring parents, something in the nature of the “American Gothic” couple. With a reasonable investigation, though, he could have painted for the jury the picture of a young man who resembled the tormented soul in “The Scream.” There is nothing wrong with a Grant Wood approach, if that is all one has to use, but an Edvard Munch approach would have been far more likely to sway the jury to sympathy for Johnson.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holsey v. Warden · Robert Wayne Holsey v. Warden, Georgia Diagonstic Prison

3. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Debruce v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections · Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections