646 So. 2d 1043 - State v. Franco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Both the United States Supreme Court and the Louisiana Supreme Court have given great consideration to the relationship between conflicting interests and effective assistance of counsel. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). State v. Carmouche, 508 So.2d 792 (La.1987); State v. Wille, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992). The courts have established two avenues for identifying and resolving Sixth Amendment violations due to a conflict of interest, depending upon when the issue is raised. Where the defendant raises the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflict of interest prior to trial, the trial judge must "either ... appoint separate counsel or take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk of a conflict of interest was too remote to warrant separate counsel." State v. Wille, supra at 1153 , quoting from Holloway, supra. If, as in the instant case, the defendant did not raise the issue of conflict of interest until after trial, he is required to show that "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance" in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation. Id., quoting from Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 720 So. 2d 153 - State v. Matthews

2. “guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . The key question is whether counsel's performance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. State v. Sheppard, 94-694 (La.App. 5th Cir. 11/16/94), 646 So.2d 1130 . Second, defendant must show that the deficiency was so great as to prejudice the defense. This requires a showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, or”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 683 So. 2d 812 - State v. Lassere