State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the obligation to investigate and prepare for the penalty portion of a capital case cannot be overstated.”

   21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henry v. State · Mungin v. State

2. “[TJhis was not simply a case where a defense attorney latched on to a defendant’s refusal to present mitigating evidence. The evidence in support of mitigation had already been investigated and accumulated as part of Water-house’s previous collateral and habeas proceedings. In fact, the record in this case includes the affidavit of Dr. Fred S. Berlin, who concluded that Waterhouse may have been under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the commission of the crime and that this may have impaired his capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Defense counsel had also obtained the necessary paperwork to bring Waterhouse’s brother from Louisiana, but Waterhouse indicated that if that were done, he would contact his brother and tell him to avoid the proceedings. Additionally, after the trial court appointed Dr. Charles H. Whea-ton to examine Waterhouse for the possibility that he might suffer from organic brain damage, Waterhouse refused to meet ■with the doctor. Accordingly, because the only reason why mitigating evidence was not presented was entirely due to Waterhouse’s own conduct, we cannot deem defense counsel deficient for failing to present such evidence. Thus, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied an evi-dentiary hearing as to this claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Krawczuk v. State · 949 So. 2d 1021 - Jones v. State

3. “the finding as to whether counsel was adequately prepared does not revolve solely around the amount of time counsel spends on the case or the number of days which he or she spends preparing for mitigation”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 894 So. 2d 137 - Brown v. State · 928 So. 2d 1089 - Davis v. State