Powers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

97 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 98 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. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Angel Navarro v. State of Rhode Island · Washington v. State

2. ““touchstone of materiality is a ‘reasonable probability’ of a different result * * *. The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. A ‘reasonable probability’ of a different result is accordingly shown when the government’s evidentiary suppression ‘undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.’ ” Powers, 734 A.2d at 514 (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 506 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bleau v. Wall

3. ““[First], the trial justice must determine (1) if the newly discovered evidence actually is newly discovered or available only since the trial, (2) if the petitioner was diligent in attempting to discover the evidence for use at the original trial, (8) that the evidence is hot merely cumulative or impeaching but is also material to the issue, and (4) that the evidence is of a kind that would probably change the verdict at a new trial.” Mastracchio, 698 A.2d at 713 (quoting McMaugh v. State, 612 A.2d 725, 731 (R.I.1992)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Doctor v. State