Sullivan v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Sullivan also contends that counsel was ineffective because he did not raise certain issues on direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Counsel did file a brief on appeal which argued and supported several substantive legal claims, such as the admission of testimony relating to a polygraph. This is not a situation similar to Mylar v. Alabama, 671 F.2d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir.1982), where we held that failure to file a brief in a nonfrivolous appeal falls below the standard of competency expected and required of counsel in criminal cases and therefore constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Sullivan’s appellate counsel functioned as an active advocate on behalf of his client. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 [ 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ] (1967). The failure of counsel, in 1974, to advance certain points on appeal which subsequently gained judicial recognition does not render counsel ineffective. Sullivan acknowledges that he was one of the first defendants to be tried under Florida’s post-Furman death penalty statute. At the time of trial and appeal in 1973-74, the law concerning capital sentencing was in a state of reformation. Sullivan does not direct us to any case decided at that time and overlooked by counsel. Counsel’s failure to divine the judicial development of Florida’s capital sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Accord Proffitt v. Wainwright [ 685 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir.1982) ]. Thus, we find that Sullivan received”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Songer v. Wainwright · 441 So. 2d 609 - Sullivan v. State

2. “decline[d] to adopt a rigid rule which would require counsel to argue to the jury in a specific manner or to make particular objections during the penalty phase of a capital case. Each case turns on its own facts and the effectiveness of counsel must also be judged on the facts and conduct of those involved in each case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Songer v. Wainwright

3. “The district court's conclusion on this issue is entitled to no special deference and this court must review counsel's performance and determine independently whether the constitutional standard was met.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Birt v. Montgomery