Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 748 F.2d 1435 - Fleming v. Kemp

Fleming v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis

748 F.2d 1435 · 1984

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2014 · most notably Waters v. Thomas (1995), Fleming v. Kemp, Warden (1986)

20 federal appellate · 13 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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California

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

  1. “"In summary, we are not persuaded by petitioner's argument that . . . [defense counsel] rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's examples of professional dereliction dissolve away under close scrutiny, leaving at best a handful of colorable claims. A defense attorney is not ineffective solely because his client is sentenced to death. 'Intrusive post-trial inquiry into attorney performance,' such as that which has been required in this case, may 'dampen the ardor and impair the independence of defense counsel, discourage the acceptance of assigned cases, and undermine the trust between attorney and client.' Strickland v. Washington , [466] U.S. at [690], 104 S.Ct. at 2066 . Counsel's performance, here, ensured a fundamentally 'fair trial' which 'produced a just result.' Id. at [686], 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . There is reason to set aside petitioner's conviction or his penalty on account of the representation he received."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The murder of James Edward Giddens took place between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on February 11, 1976 near Lakeland, Lanier County, Georgia. It was the last of a series of crimes committed that night by petitioner, Son H. Fleming, and his accomplices, Henry Willis III and Larry Donnell Fleming (petitioner’s nephew), in south central Georgia. On the afternoon of February 11, petitioner, in Moultrie, Georgia, borrowed a red and white Ford car from Terry Coney, a friend. At about 8:00 p.m., petitioner left Moultrie in the car with Larry Donnell Fleming and Henry Willis III as passengers. The three men robbed a convenience store that evening between 10:00 and 10:30 in Adel, Georgia. Larry Fleming and Willis, one of them armed with a .22 caliber revolver, went into the store while petitioner remained in the car. They accosted the manager, rifled the cash register, and fled with a brown paper bag of money and a carton of Kool cigarettes. James Edward Giddens, the police chief of Ray City, was sitting in his police car in Ray City talking with a friend, L.V. Dupree, when he received a broadcast over his police radio about the robbery. Shortly thereafter, the red and white Ford passed through Ray City. The car appeared to have two occupants, but, in fact, there was a third who was hidden from view. One of the occupants wore a baseball cap. Chief Giddens pursued the car to investigate. Moments later, he radioed the police dispatcher that he was stopping the car and gave a conclusive descrip”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State's witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. . . . [T]rained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.