Garza v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
738 F.3d 669 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Garza contends that trial counsel was ineffective in not investigating and introducing evidence of his possible fetal alcohol syndrome. But, as the district court observed, Garza fails to provide evidence that the underlying facts concerning such a syndrome were made known to trial counsel. Trial counsel had no leads to that effect. None of the family members mentioned the mother’s alcohol or drug abuse to trial counsel', in fact, the witnesses spoke favorably of her at the punishment phase. Furthermore, such evidence was neither located in the TYC file, which contained three separate psychological evaluations of Garza, nor provided by Ferrell at any time. Given trial counsel’s investigation, and the lack of any evidence regarding the mother’s substance use, it was entirely reasonable to not investigate the possible effects of fetal alcohol syndrome. Accordingly, Garza cannot overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s representation on this front fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 78”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Trevino v. Davis“Federal review of the merits of a procedurally-barred claim is permitted, however, where the petitioner is able to ‘demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A federal habeas claim is barred by procedural default when the state court has rejected the claim pursuant to a state procedural rule that provides an adequate basis for the decision, independent of the merits of the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gonzales v. Davis
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.