Glenn v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 federal appellate · 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t was not that such information could not be found, or that counsel made a reasoned decision to withhold the information for tactical or strategic reasons”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coleman v. Mitchell · Thompson v. Bell

2. “Although both of Glenn’s court-appointed lawyers were experienced criminal defense attorneys, and although they had some eight months to get ready for sentencing proceedings necessitated by a verdict that could hardly have come as a surprise to them, evidence presented to the state trial court at a post-sentence hearing showed that the lawyers made virtually no attempt to prepare for the sentencing phase of the trial until after the jury returned its verdict of guilty. It was obvious, or should have been, that the sentencing phase was likely to be “the stage of the proceedings where counsel can do his or her client the most good,” Kubat v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 351 , 369 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 206 , 107 L.Ed.2d 159 (1989)— yet Glenn’s counsel failed to make any significant preparations for the sentencing phase until after the conclusion of the guilt phase. This inaction was objectively unreasonable. “To save the difficult and time-consuming task of assembling mitigation witnesses until after the jury’s verdict in the guilt phase almost insures that witnesses will not be available.” Blanco v. Singletary, 943 F.2d 1477 , 1501-02 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 943 , 112 S.Ct. 2282 , 119 L.Ed.2d 207 (1992). The reason for the paucity of mitigation evidence, as we have said, was lack of preparation on the part of Glenn’s lawyers. The lawyers made no systematic effort to acquaint themselves with their client’s social history. They never spoke to any”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Greer v. Mitchell

3. “Our sister circuits have had no difficulty in finding prejudice in sentencing proceedings where counsel failed to present pertinent evidence of mental history and mental capacity. ... [S]ee, e.g., Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 652-55 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872 , 109 S.Ct. 189 , 102 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988) (“the resulting prejudice is clear”); Blanco v. Singletary, 943 F.2d [1477, 1505 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 943 , 112 S.Ct. 2282 , 119 L.Ed.2d 207 (1992) ](prejudice requirement “clearly met” by counsel’s failure to present evidence of epileptic seizures and organic brain damage); Loyd v. Whitley, 977 F.2d 149, 159-60 (5th Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 508 U.S. 911 , 113 S.Ct. 2343 , 124 L.Ed.2d 253 (1993) (failure to present mitigating evidence of substantial mental defects “undermines our confidence in the outcome”). We would be badly out of step with the other circuits were we to conclude, that there was no prejudice in the case at bar.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 129 F. Supp. 2d 390 - Jacobs v. Horn