Bennett v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
663 F.3d 71 · 2011
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Olano · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Faretta v. California · Puckett v. United States
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) he “must show that counsel’s performance was deficient,” [Strickland, ] 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , so deficient that, “in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance,” id. at 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; and (2) he must show “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense,” id. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , in the sense that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” id. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be rejected if the defendant fails to meet either the performance prong or the prejudice prong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.