882 So. 2d 135 - Bishop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard for determining if a defendant received effective assistance of counsel is well settled. "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness [of counsel] must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , [2064,] 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). A defendant must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case. Id. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. [at 2064]. "Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable." Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 477 (Miss.1984) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. [at 2064]). The focus of the inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 945 So. 2d 326 - Howard v. State

2. “Bishop “has not submitted sufficient evidence of a breach of the duty of counsel to investigate and present mitigation evidence as described by the United States Supreme Court in Wiggins v. Smith [, 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) ].” Simmons v. State, 869 So.2d 995, 1004 (Miss.2004). Finally, even if additional mitigation evidence had been discovered, pursuant to Bishop’s instructions, it could not be presented during the sentencing phase of the trial. Bishop cannot show that counsels’ performance was deficient or that such deficiency prejudiced him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Loden v. State

3. “Bishop has included the affidavits of his mother, other family members, and his ex-wife to support his argument. However, the quantity and quality of possible mitigation evidence is irrelevant based on Bishop’s instructions to his defense attorneys. Bishop’s counsel did all that they could, within the limitations placed on them by Bishop. Witnesses were not called, and mitigation evidence was not presented pursuant to Bishop’s specific instructions. Because defense counsel acted in accord with Bishop’s instmctions, their performance was not deficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Loden v. State