Escamilla v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.3d 380 · 2014
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Fields (2014), Gray v. Zook (2015)
5 federal appellate ·
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 · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Harrington v. Richter
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assis tance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gray v. Zook“Generally, counsel's strategic decisions are afforded deference so long as they are based on counsel's professional judgment. However, if a purportedly tactical decision is not preceded by a reasonable investigation, then it is not sufficiently informed and not entitled to the deference typically afforded counsel's choices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mejia v. Stephens“declined to hire a mitigation specialist, failed to obtain a psychological evaluation for their client until after trial began, and failed to ensure that the expert evaluating [the petitioner] was aware of his family background and social history.” Id. at 392, at . We found prejudice, noting that the”
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.