696 So. 2d 240 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a conflict of interest between the defendant and his attorney is raised before trial, the standard set forth in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) applies. In Holloway , the defendant raised the issue of ineffective counsel due to a conflict of interest before trial. The Supreme Court held that when the claim is raised before trial, a trial judge is required to either appoint separate counsel or ascertain whether the risk of a conflict of interest is too remote to warrant separate counsel. Id. See also State v. Wille, 595 So.2d 1149, 1153 (La.1992), ce rt. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992). If, however, the conflict is raised after trial, the standard set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 , (1980) is applied. Wille, 595 So.2d 1149 . Under this standard, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest exists which adversely affects his lawyer’s performance. Cuyler, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 . See also Wille, 595 So.2d 1149 . 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 So. 3d 1046 - State v. Lewis

2. ““A defendant attempting to suppress an identification must prove both that the identification itself was suggestive and that there was a likelihood of mis-identification as a result of the identification procedure.” State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 738 (La.1984). In Mamon v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), the Supreme Court considered five factors in determining whether an identification was suggestive: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the defendant at the time the crime was committed; (2) the degree of attention paid by the witness during the commission of the crime; (3) the accuracy of any prior description; (4) the level of the witness’s certainty displayed at the time of the identification; and (5) the length of time elapsed between the crime and the identification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 796 So. 2d 850 - State v. Wright