Apelt v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
878 F.3d 800 · 2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Lockett v. Ohio
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Villareal 3 did not collect records from social service agencies, welfare agencies, doctors, hospitals, or employers. Villareal did not interview potential mitigation witnesses, including Apelt's family members, or consult with any mental health experts. Villareal did not obtain Apelt's readily-available medical health records from the Pinal County jail which described Apelt receiving various medications as well as Apelt's placement on suicide watch. And Villareal did not present a single witness at the sentencing hearing. This was deficient performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Apelt v. Ryan“'whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.' " Apelt , 878 F.3d at 832 (quoting Andrews v. Davis , 866 F.3d 994 , 1020 (9th Cir. 2017), reh'g en banc granted by 888 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 695 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ) ). And, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Apelt v. Ryan“in Germany and other indicia of psychiatric issues, but did not take the steps necessary to investigate his client's background for sentencing. Id . at 829-31. Villarreal also acknowledged that his failure to investigate mitigation evidence was not a strategic choice. Id . at 830. Thus, the panel rightly agreed with the district court that Villarreal's performance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Apelt v. Ryan
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.