Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2015
16 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Swain v. State of Alabama · Griffith v. Kentucky · Allen v. Hardy
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A change of the law “does not render counsel ineffective in failing to predict the change and assert the theory of the change in the law in the face of settled authority.” Bolder v. State, 613 S.W.2d 196, 197 [2] (Mo.App.1981). Rather, “[ijneffectiveness of counsel is measured upon the circumstances and the law at the time of trial,” and “cannot be predicated on a failure to predict a change in the law.” Id. “Counsel,” it has been said, “need not be clairvoyant to be effective”. Battle v. State, 674 S.W.2d 179, 181 [4] (Mo.App.1984). The [movant] has framed his argument in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel, and argues that [his counsel] was ineffective in failing to raise this issue at trial or on direct appeal. However, ... when the [movant’s] trial occurred, Swain v. Alabama was the “law of the land”, and any objection to the State’s use of its peremptory challenges to remove black jurors would have been “a useless gesture.” It is well settled that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a nonmeritorious objection, Shaw v. State, 686 S.W.2d 513, 516 [8] (Mo.App.1985), or for failing to file a motion which would have been doomed to failure. Pollard v. State, 627 S.W.2d 114, 116 [4] (Mo.App.1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lawrence v. State““A change in the law ‘does not render counsel ineffective in failing to predict the change and assert the theory of the change in the law in the face of settled authority.’ Bolder v. State, 613 S.W.2d 196, 197 [2] (Mo.App.1981). Rather, ‘[ineffectiveness of counsel is measured upon the circumstances and the law at the time of trial,’ and ‘cannot be predicated on a failure to predict a change in the law.’ Id. ‘Counsel,’ it has been said, ‘need not be clairvoyant to be effective.’ Battle v. State, 674 S.W.2d 179, 181 [4] (Mo.App.1984).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stillings
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.