Tucker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[s]uch strategic choices fall squarely within the sphere of competent representation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coffman v. State · James v. State

2. “Risher creates a two-prong standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Under the first prong, the defendant must establish that trial counsel failed to “perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law[.]” [Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1974) ] at 424 (quoting Beasley v. United States, 491 F.2d 687, 696 (6th Cir.1974)); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The standard for ineffective assistance is minimal competence; to establish ineffective assistance, the defendant must show “a level of performance that no reasonably competent attorney would provide.” State v. Jones, 759 P.2d 558, 568 (Alaska App.1988) (citation omitted). Under the second prong, the defendant must create a reasonable doubt as to whether counsel’s lack of competency contributed to the conviction. Risher, 523 P.2d at 425 ; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 .”

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

3. “winnow[ ] out weaker arguments on appeal.”

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