Lambrix v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 1500 · 1996
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Lambrix v. Singletary (1997), United States v. Scott (2005)
20 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Teague v. Lane · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Godfrey v. Georgia · Maynard v. Cartwright
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if we concluded that [the defendant] was denied his right to testify during his first trial, the appropriate remedy would be to grant a new trial. Therefore, because [the defendant] has already received a second trial, this issue is moot.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lambrix’s claim that he was unaware of his right to testify is dubious considering the evidence he has adduced concerning his attempt to assert that right in his first trial. Moreover, after receiving an evidentiary hearing on this issue before the district court, Lambrix adduced no evidence supporting his allegation that counsel failed to adequately inform him of the right to testify. Therefore, Lam-brix has simply failed to show that some action or inaction by counsel deprived him of “the ability to choose whether or not to testify in his own behalf.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Without evidence that [the defendant] was subject to continued coercion, we cannot assume that [the defendant's] apparent acquiescence to a trial strategy in which he did not testify was anything but voluntary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.