United States v. Rantz’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 808 · 1988
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably United States v. Rutter (1990), United States v. Miller (1990)
19 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Cronic · Malloy v. Hogan · Nix v. Whiteside
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, it must be shown [that] counsel committed serious errors so as to not be functioning as the “counsel” provided by the Sixth Amendment. To determine whether counsel’s performance comported with the Sixth Amendment, the inquiry is whether the attorney’s conduct [was] reasonable in light of all the circumstances of the case. This is an objective standard based on whether the reasonable defense attorney would act in the same manner as the defense counsel in the situation being analyzed. Second, it must be shown that counsel’s performance was prejudicial to the defense. “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, -the result of the proceeding would have been different.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to find that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, it must be shown that counsel did not exercise “the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney.” United States v. Afflerbach, 754 F.2d 866 , 870 (10th Cir.), cert. den., 472 U.S. 1029 , 105 S.Ct. 3506 , 87 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). There is a strong presumption that counsel provided effective assistance of counsel and petitioner has the burden of proof to overcome that presumption. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 2046, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his type of testimony is so prejudicial that instructing the jury to disregard the co-defendant's confession as to other defendants is insufficient to remedy the violation of constitutionally protected rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.