Young v. Spinner’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.3d 282 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Harrington v. Richter · McNeill v. United States · Harrington v. Richter
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if [King] has a plausible argument that he would have [accepted the alleged 15-year deal] had he known [probation] was impossible, that does not establish that the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Davis“In assessing whether a reasonable defendant would have rationally chosen to go to trial under the circumstances, we also consider the risks faced by a defendant in selecting a trial rather than a plea bargain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Davis“counsel's ineffectiveness is only a basis for vacating a conviction if there is a reasonable probability it made a difference to the outcome of the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Davis
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.