Haliburton v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 761 So. 2d 1055 - Freeman v. State (2000), 768 So. 2d 1037 - Occhicone v. State (2000)
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ven though this strategy was unsuccessful in persuading the court and jury to sentence Haliburton to life imprisonment, we cannot conclude that he was ineffective. In light of the substantial, compelling aggravation found by the trial court, there is no reasonable probability that had the mental health expert testified, the outcome would have been different.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the successor judge properly ruled on [his] motion for rehearing; (2) whether the state withheld exculpatory evi dence and whether counsel’s performance was deficient during the guilt phase; (3) whether counsel's performance was deficient at the penalty phase; (4) whether the jury instructions and aggravating circumstances were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; (5) whether the state complied with [his] chapter 119 requests; (6) whether counsel was ineffective in advising [him] to waive speedy trial rights on the burglary charge; (7) whether counsel was ineffective regarding prosecutorial misconduct; (8) whether the jury instructions improperly shifted the burden to [him]; and (9) whether [he] was denied due process when the governor signed his death warrant before the two-year time limit for filing a motion for post-conviction relief expired.”
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.