Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 756 NW2D 107 - Jama v. State

Jama v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Delaware v. Fensterer · State v. Knaffla · State v. Litherland · Gates v. State

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

  1. “[N]o Minnesota cases have squarely considered whether the Knajfla bar applies when the same attorney represented the petitioner at trial and on direct appeal. ... [Considerations of fairness are implicated. Counsel may have an inherent conflict of interest because counsel cannot be expected to allege his or her own incompetence as an aspect of appellate representation. For this reason, a petitioner’s failure to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim on direct appeal cannot be considered inexcusable. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached this conclusion.... In sum, in these settings '... failure to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is presumptively neither deliberate nor inexcusable and that, in fairness, further review should not be barred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) that defense counsel was so inattentive or indifferent during the jury selection process that the failure to remove a prospective juror was not the product of a conscious choice or preference; (2) that a prospective juror expressed bias so strong or unequivocal that no plausible countervailing subjective preference could justify failure to remove that juror; or (3) that there is some other . specific evidence clearly demonstrating that counsel’s choice was not plausibly justifiable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.