Autry v. McKaskle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “By no measure can ... [the defendant] block his lawyer's efforts and later claim the resulting performance was constitutionally deficient.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burns v. State · 882 So. 2d 135 - Bishop v. State

2. “[T]he Supreme Court has refused pro se withdrawal of a petition for writ of cer-tiorari absent a competency hearing when counsel questioned his client’s competence and supported his concern with a report by an examining psychiatrist who found him incompetent. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 , 86 S.Ct. 1505 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1965). It does not follow for us that refusing to plead for mercy after being convicted of two execution-style slayings will alone so implicate a defendant’s competency as to render his counsel constitutionally ineffective for not seeking an inquiry into competency before abiding the client’s decision. There is no other evidence from trial or from the post-conviction evidentiary hearings that raises questions about Autry’s competence. The United States district judge found no suggestion of incompetence after reviewing the entire trial record and listening to the testimony of Autry and all the witnesses. Those witnesses included the priest , who attended Autry on the eve of his aborted execution, Autry’s mother and prison officials. None suggested that Autry was or is other than competent. While categorization of decisions as the personal choices of a criminal defendant or the tactical choices of counsel is not always an easy task, cf. Jones v. Estelle, 122 F.2d 159 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc), the United States district court found that Autry made the decisions he now charges his lawyer incompetently made. If Autry knowingly made the choices, Carver was ethicall”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Felde v. Blackburn

3. “Autry refused to allow his counsel to proceed on a tactical course that might have conferred substantial benefit, and, in the case of the refused plea bargain, would have avoided the risk of a death sentence. A competency hearing is not an automatic condition for accepting such decisions. Indeed the Supreme Court has allowed a pro se withdrawal of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a death-sentenced prisoner, with no inquiry into competence in face of counsel's failure to question his client's competence. Hammett v. Texas, 448 U.S. 725 , 100 S.Ct. 2905, 65 L.Ed.2d 1086 (1980). At the same time, the Supreme Court has refused pro se withdrawal of a petition for writ of certiorari absent a competency hearing when counsel questioned his client's competence and supported his concern with a report by an examining psychiatrist who found him incompetent. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Streetman v. Lynaugh