Zamora v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 956 · 1987
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Beets v. Scott (1995), Freund v. Butterworth (1999)
12 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Holloway v. Arkansas · Jones v. Howard
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In a conflict of interest situation, the court will presume prejudice to the defendant if he shows that he received inadequate representation because counsel actively represented conflicting interests. Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335 , 349-50 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 1718-19 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); Porter v. Wainwright , 805 F.2d 930 , 939 (11th Cir. 1986); cert. denied , [482] U.S. [918], [919], 107 S.Ct. 3195 , 3196 , 96 L.Ed.2d 682 [683] (1987). A potential conflict is not sufficient to impugn a criminal conviction, Cuyler , 446 U.S. at 350 , 100 S.Ct. at 1719 , but the standard developed in Cuyler has been applied to cases in which defendants argue that their lawyers were more interested in publicity than in obtaining an acquittal. See United States v. Hearst , 638 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied , 451 U.S. 938 , 101 S.Ct. 2018 , 68 L.Ed.2d 325 (1981)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In Hearst , F. Lee Bailey was held to have a conflict of interest because he had contracted with a publisher during the course of the proceedings to write a book about his client, Patty Hearst, and her case. 638 F.2d at 1192 . Like Bailey, Ellis Rubin [the attorney in Zamora v. Dugger ], contracted to write a book about his client's trial. However, Rubin did not negotiate for the book contract during the course of the proceedings. Rubin conducted negotiations one year after trial. "In addition, Zamora did not testify at trial, unlike Patty Hearst. Thus, Rubin is not susceptible to the allegation raised against Bailey that he had his client testify so that he could write about it in his book. Consequently, the book contract in this case did not constitute a conflict at the time of trial."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Hearst , F. Lee Bailey was held to have a conflict of interest because he had contracted with a publisher during the course of the proceedings to write a book about his client, Patty Hearst, and her case. 638 F.2d at 1192 . Like Bailey, Ellis Rubin [the attorney in Zamora v. Dugger ], contracted to write a book about his client's trial. However, Rubin did not negotiate for the book contract during the course of the proceedings. Rubin conducted negotiations one year after trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.