Coppage v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A petitioner is not required to provide evidentiary support for his petition until he has been given notice he is being put on his proof. At that point, the petitioner may not merely rely on the pleadings or on unsupported, conclusory allegations, but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means which raises an issue of material fact. If the petitioner presents competent evidence, he is then entitled to an evidentiary hearing to fully present that evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leavitt v. State · Lindsey v. State

2. “Coppage’s evidentiary and prosecuto-rial misconduct claims could have been raised in prior proceedings. However, Coppage argued the claims were not previously raised because his prior post-conviction counsel was ineffective. [[Image here]] Coppage argues his post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to argue his trial and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues. Res judicata does not bar Cop-page’s ineffective assistance claim. [[Image here]] In Coppage’s affidavit, he claimed his post-conviction counsel was ineffective because she failed to develop an eviden-tiary record on the issues he raised in his current application for post-conviction relief, which resulted in the State’s claim that the issues are barred by res judicata and misuse of process. He claimed his post-conviction counsel should have developed a record about his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance in failing to object when the State questioned him about prior crimes or wrongs during the trial. He claimed the district court had ruled before trial that any evidence of prior acts of domestic violence would not be admitted but the State questioned him about these acts knowing the court already ruled on the issue and his trial counsel failed to object to the State’s questions. Coppage claimed his post-conviction counsel should have developed a record about whether the prosecutor’s questioning constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Coppage claimed his trial counsel’s performan”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coppage v. State

3. ““Generally, summary disposition is not appropriate when there are claims of ineffective - assistance of counsel. In most cases claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are based on matters occurring outside the court record or transcript, and therefore the record and transcripts are not adequate to decide the claims and an evidentiary hearing may be required to consider other evidence beyond the record.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peterka v. State