Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 746 F.2d 951 - Mitchell v. Scully

Mitchell v. Scully’s Empirical Analysis

746 F.2d 951 · 1984

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Hill v. Lockhart (1985), Lambert v. Blodgett (2004)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

2801984199020002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · McMann v. Richardson · United States v. Frady

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

  1. “[D]ue process does not require that a defendant be advised of every basis on which he might escape or receive a lesser punishment for an offense that he has committed. The distinction is particularly strong where, as is the case here, the burden of persuasion with respect to the appropriate defense rests on the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[C]ounsel had every reason to think that raising the defense had almost no chance of success and would expose [defendant] to the risk of serious additional punishment on other charges, with little to be gained if the defense succeeded. It would, of course, have been far better for counsel to have advised [defendant] of the affirmative defense ... while recommending against its use. But we cannot say that failure to do so, under the circumstances of this case, was outside the “range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “when a defendant has pled guilty on the advice of counsel and then challenges the plea on the ground that it was not voluntary and knowing because he was not apprised of an affirmative defense, we have upheld the validity of the plea unless the defendant can show that the advice he received from counsel was constitutionally ineffective within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.