King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “can so prejudice the right of a defendant to a fair trial that [they] will serve to support a conclusion that reasonably effective assistance was not afforded.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mellott v. State · Brock v. State

2. “defendant would only have to show that his attorney's conflict reduced his effectiveness.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wall v. State · Sorensen v. State

3. “"The failure to pursue an interview [with an alleged eye witness] constitute[s] an abrogation of counsel's duty to * * * conduct a reasonable investigation and to utilize any information obtained in providing a reasonable defense." Gist , 737 P.2d at 343 . When this deficiency is demonstrated, the appellant need not demonstrate the resulting prejudice, it is presumed. "Prejudice in [this circumstance] is so likely that case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the cost." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S. Ct. at 2067 . See also Sanders v. Sullivan , 701 F. Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1987), also involving a failure to secure attendance at trial; and Richardson v. State , 189 Ga. App. 113 , 375 S.E.2d 59 (1988), where proposed alibi witnesses were neither interviewed nor subpoenaed.”

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