Darden v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 1225 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · United States v. Cronic · Bell Warden v. Cone · United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In [Florida v.] Nixon, [ 543 U.S. 175 (2004),] the Supreme Court maintained that ‘[a]n attorney undoubtedly has a duty to consult with the client regarding “important decisions,” including questions of overarching defense strategy.’ 543 U.S. at 187 , 125 S.Ct. 551 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (‘From counsel’s function as assistant to the defendant derive ... the[ ] duties to consult with the defendant on important decisions and to keep the defendant informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution.’). From this, Darden contends that when- defense counsel doesn’t consult with his -or her client before strategically conceding guilt Cronic automatically applies.- Put another way, Darden contends that the result in Nixon would have been different had defense counsel not consulted with defendant before strategically conceding guilt. “Darden - overreads Nixon’s dicta. The Court has never retreated from its holding in Cronic that only where defense' counsel -‘entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,’ should prejudice be presumed. Nixon is no exception. There, the Court declined to apply Cronic because defense counsel’s strategic concession did not ‘rank as a “failure to function in any meaningful sense as the government’s adversary,” ’ notwithstanding defendant’s failure to consent to the strategy. Nix”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. State
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.