Grant v. Lockett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hatchett · 42 F. Supp. 3d 686 - United States v. Gassew

2. “To show prejudice, Strickland requires a petitioner to show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . This requires more than just a “conceivable” likelihood of a different result. Harrington [v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 ], 131 S.Ct. [770] at 792 [ 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) ]. However, a petitioner “need not show that counsel’s deficient performance ‘more likely than not altered the outcome of the case’ — rather he must show only ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92, 105 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). Moreover, “[t]he effect of counsel’s inadequate performance must be evaluated in light of the totality of the evidence at trial: ‘a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support.’ ” Rolan v. Vaughn, 445 F.3d 671, 682 (3d Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702, 710-11 (3d Cir.1989) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 )).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 42 F. Supp. 3d 624 - Moore v. Beard

3. “[T]he burden is on the defendant to exercise reasonable diligence.”); United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 , 262 (3d Cir. 1984) (''[T]he government is not obliged under Brady to furnish a defendant with information which he already has or, with any reasonable diligence, he can obtain himself” (internal quotation marks omitted).). 4 . More specifically, Richter says:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections