State v. Dawson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “1. The State violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process of the law by suppressing certain exculpatory evidence both before and during trial. 2. The Superior Court’s permission to the State to introduce evidence of uncharged bad acts that were more prejudicial than probative and were not supported by an appropriate evidentiary foundation violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process of the law. 3. The Superior Court’s failure to sequester the jury violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process of the law. 4. The Superior Court’s permission to the State to offer its personal opinions regarding his guilt and to argue for conviction based on irrelevant matters violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process of the law. 5. The Superior Court’s permission to the State to make closing arguments that were not relevant to the aggravating factors the State was attempting to prove during the 1993 penalty hearing violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 6. The Delaware death penalty statute, as administered in Delaware and applied to him, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 7. The death sentence violates his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because Delaware’s death penalty statute fails to adequately narrow the group of death-eligible defendants. 8. The Superior Cour”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 F. Supp. 783 - Dawson v. Snyder

2. “The Court accepts the affidavit of defense counsel to the effect that he discussed with Dawson his choice of testifying or not testifying on several occasions. Counsel sent Dawson a letter detailing what was involved in his choice of whether or not to testify. Further, Dawson signed an affidavit stating that he understood counsel’s letter and that he did not wish to testify at trial, however, ‘if I change my mind at any time, I agree to tell my lawyers immediately.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 F. Supp. 783 - Dawson v. Snyder

3. “Id. Tenth, Dawson claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to present a unified theory for his defense. Judge Ridgely denied this claim, remarking that “[a]fter a complete review of the trial and expanded record, the Court finds that trial counsel’s strategy to ask sufficient questions so as to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury was not unreasonable or deficient under Strickland.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 F. Supp. 783 - Dawson v. Snyder