Richardson v. Branker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Hardee · Richardson v. Thomas

2. “The court must evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time, and apply a strong presumption that counsel's representation was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, in order to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight. In all cases, the petitioner's burden is to show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter v. Zook

3. “not persuaded by Richardson's ... argument that the MAR court should have adjusted downward his IQ scores of 73 and 74 due to the 'Flynn effect' and the 'practice effect.' " Id. at 151 (emphasis added). Although noting that the MAR court held an evidentiary hearing and received evidence concerning these factors, "the MAR court declined to adjust Richardson's I.Q. scores on the basis of those theories.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. Thomas