651 So. 2d 663 - Molton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`[I]n order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, ... [the appellant] must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.' Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 348 , 100 S.Ct. at 1718 . Accord Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 876, 878 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). To prove that an actual conflict adversely affected his counsel's performance, a defendant must make a factual showing `that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests,' Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 350 , 100 S.Ct. at 1719 , `"and must demonstrate that the attorney `made a choice between possible alternative courses of action, such as eliciting (or failing to elicit) evidence helpful to one client but harmful to the other.'"' Barham v. United States, 724 F.2d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir.)(quoting United States v. Mers, 701 F.2d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 1983)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1230 , 104 S.Ct. 2687 , 81 L.Ed.2d 882 (1984). Once a defendant makes a sufficient showing of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel's performance, prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)—i.e, `that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different'— is presumed. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 692 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 2067 . See United States v. Winkle, 722 F.2d 605, 610 (10th Cir.1983); Williams v. State, 574 So.2d at 878 ."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wimberly v. State · M.S. v. State

2. “[W]here . . . a defendant clearly objects at the charge conference to the trial court's refusal to give a written requested charge and states specific reasons for that objection, he is not required to renew his objection at the close of the oral instructions to preserve that issue for appellate review.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilkerson v. State · Burger v. State

3. “No party may assign as error the court's . . . failing to give a written instruction . . . unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilkerson v. State · Burger v. State