769 So. 2d 44 - State v. Mims’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

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

1. “The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is to be assessed by the two-part test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See State v. Fuller, 454 So.2d 119 (La. 1984). The defendant must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced him. The defendant must make both showings to prove counsel was so ineffective as to require reversal. State v. Sparrow, 612 So.2d 191, 199 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992). Counsel's performance is not ineffective unless it can be shown that he or she made errors so serious that he or she was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed to the defendant by the 6th Amendment of the federal constitution. Strickland, supra, at 686 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . That is, counsel's deficient performance will only be considered to have prejudiced the defendant if the defendant shows that the errors were so serious that he was deprived of a fair trial. To carry his burden, the defendant "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 .”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 768 So. 2d 647 - State v. Dawson · State v. Smith

2. “(1) Is biased, prejudiced, or personally interested in the cause to such an extent that he would be unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial; * * * (6) Would be unable, for any other reason, to conduct fair and impartial trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 249 So. 3d 260 - State v. Alridge · 835 So. 2d 850 - State v. Doleman

3. “Considering the facts and circumstances ' of the instant case, it is not unreasonable to argue that the minimal probative value of Officer Leary’s detailed technical testimony concerning the weapons and accoutrements was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. However, we are unwilling to say that the trial court, which was in the optimal position to evaluate the impact of the testimony on the jurors, abused its considerable discretion in applying La. C.E. art. 403. Moreover, even if we assume that the trial court did abuse its discretion, we must conduct a harmless error ánalysis, determining whether the admission of the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 107 So. 3d 867 - State v. Dennis