McGee v. Crist’s Empirical Analysis
739 F.2d 505 · 1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2009
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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. § 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 · Gideon v. Wainwright · McMann v. Richardson · Kastigar v. United States · United States v. Monton
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In criminal prosecutions, “the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel.” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 1449 n. 14, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); McGee v. Crist, 739 F.2d 505, 506 (10th Cir.1984). The Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel “demands that defense counsel exercise the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney.” Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F.2d 275, 278 (10th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 945 , 100 S.Ct. 1342 , 63 L.Ed.2d 779 (1980).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to order immunity absent the application of the government”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A defendant has no sixth amendment right to demand that any witness he chooses be immunized, and the prosecution’s refusal to grant immunity to a defense witness who would allegedly offer exculpatory testimony to a defendant does not amount to a denial of due process or a violation of appellant’s sixth amendment rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Baca
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.