Waiters v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.3d 466 · 2017
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Cronic · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Bell Warden v. Cone
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel's performance. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garner v. Lee“[e]ven serious errors by counsel do not warrant granting habeas relief where the conviction is supported by overwhelming evidence of guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garner v. Lee“a defendant must demonstrate both 'that counsel's performance was deficient' and 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garner v. Lee
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.