Blake v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
758 F.2d 523 · 1985
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Chandler v. United States (2000), State v. Fritz (1987)
71 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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. § 1291 · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Agurs · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t should be beyond cavil that an attorney who fails altogether to make any preparations for the penalty phase of a capital murder trial deprives his client of reasonably effective assistance of counsel by any objective standard of reasonableness,”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. State · Williams v. State“"failure to seek out and prepare any witnesses to testify as to mitigating circumstances . . . deprived him of . . . an opportunity [to put on mitigating evidence]. This was not simply the result of a tactical decision not to utilize mitigation witnesses once counsel was aware of the overall character of their testimony. Instead, it was the result of a complete failurealbeit prompted by a good faith expectation of a favorable verdictto prepare for perhaps the most critical stage of the proceedings. We thus believe that the probability that Blake would have received a lesser sentence but for his counsel's error is sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a presumption of prejudice would be proper where counsel's representation was so deficient as to amount in every respect to no representation at all”
3 later decisions 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.