771 So. 2d 1108 - Samra v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

cited by 16 later decisions

states following

September 2015

most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2015

15 state decisions

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

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Estes v. Texas

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

“resulting from community saturation with such prejudicial pretrial publicity that no impartial jury can be selected. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Rideau [ v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 , 83 S.Ct. 1417 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963)]; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965); Ex parte Grayson, 479 So.2d 76, 80 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 189 , 88 L.Ed.2d 157 (1985); Coleman v. Zant, 708 F.2d 541 (11th Cir.1983).'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Hyde v. State · Hall v. State
“"`A distinction must be made between a failure to investigate the mental history of an accused and the rejection of insanity as a defense after proper investigation. "An attorney with considerable experience in criminal matters and, therefore, in dealing with a wide range of people ... may be presumed to have some ability to evaluate the mental capacity of his client." United States ex rel. Rivera v. Franzen, 594 F.Supp. 198, 202 (N.D.Ill. 1984). "As a practical matter, when deciding whether to present an insanity defense, the criminal defendant's lawyer is truly the final psychiatrist. It is not the role of a court to doubt his judgment.... Trial counsel may not reject the insanity defense "`without pursuing the basic inquiries necessary to evaluate its merits intelligently.'" Rivera, 594 F.Supp. at 203 . See also Martin v. Maggio, 711 F.2d 1273, 1280 (5th Cir.1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 1455, 1467 (8th Cir.1983) ("It is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case").' " Dill v. State, 484 So.2d 491, 498 (Ala. Cr.App.1985) (emphasis original). See also Roy v. State, 680 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr. App.1996)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 791 So. 2d 383 - Payne v. State · 62 So. 3d 1071 - Roberts v. State
“by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Stephens v. State · 889 So. 2d 1 - Duke v. State

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.