House v. Balkcom’s Empirical Analysis
725 F.2d 608 · 1984
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Scott (1987), Coleman v. Brown (1986)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Rogers v. Richmond · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]hen a lawyer fails to conduct a substantial investigation into any of his client's plausible lines of defense, the lawyer has failed to render effective assistance of counsel.... While we do not require that a lawyer be a private investigator in order to discern every possible avenue which may hurt or help the client, we do require that the lawyer make an effort to investigate the obvious. Pretrial investigation, principally because it provides a basis upon which most of the defense case must rest, is, perhaps, the most critical stage of a lawyer's preparation.... In this regard, the Eleventh Circuit has enunciated the rule that effective representation, consistent with the sixth amendment, also involves `the independent duty to investigate and prepare.'" House v. Balkcom, 725 F.2d 608, 617-18 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 218 , 83 L.Ed.2d 148 (1984).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Siers v. Class · Dill v. State“Both Schumacher and Mrs. Atkins have testified that they did not pursue the matter because they ultimately decided the Ramsey-Patterson testimony could have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to trial. However, that explanation does not make sense. House v. Balkcom, 562 F.Supp. [1111] at 1132 [(N.D.Ga.1983) ]. While it is not the function of this court to second-guess the decisions of counsel as to whether or not counsel should file motions in particular cases, the explanation given here for not doing so has no realistic basis. Bobby Patterson approached the Atkinses because of what she had heard at the recently concluded trial. She could not have come forward prior to trial. Failure to file a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, standing alone, does not automatically constitute ineffective counsel.' In the totality of the other failures of the Atkinses, it adds to the already ripe impression that no real representation occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the seriousness of the charges against the defendant is a factor that must be considered in assessing counsel's performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Magill v. Dugger
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.