McWilliams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`Prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland cannot be established on the general claim that additional witnesses should have been called in mitigation. See Briley v. Bass, 750 F.2d 1238, 1248 (4th Cir.1984); see also Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 941 (4th Cir.1990). Rather, the deciding factor is whether additional witnesses would have made any difference in the mitigation phase of the trial.' Smith v. Anderson, 104 F.Supp.2d 773, 809 (S.D.Ohio 2000), aff'd, 348 F.3d 177 (6th Cir.2003). `There has never been a case where additional witnesses could not have been called.' State v. Tarver, 629 So.2d 14, 21 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt v. State · Bush v. State

2. “"In Cochran [ v. State , 548 So.2d 1062 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989)], defendant attempted to amend his petition eight months after it had originally been filed, after the evidentiary hearing had begun, after the circuit court had ruled on a related ground asserted in his petition, and after having previously filed a motion to amend. This court held: "`Cochran cannot claim that his proposed amendment was based on surprise, newly discovered evidence, or changed circumstances. "Courts may properly refuse permission to amend . . . where there is no showing of diligence or that the facts were unknown to the applicant prior to his application." 61 Am.Jur.2d, § 312 at 301 (1981). See also Robinson v. Kierce , 513 So.2d 1005 , 1006-07 (Ala. 1987); National Distillers and Chemical Corp. v. American Laubscher Corp. , 338 So.2d 1269 , 1273-75 (Ala. 1976).' "[ Cochran , 548 So.2d at 1075 .] See also Whitehead v. State , 593 So.2d 126 *Page 1284 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). In this case, where the appellant failed to file the motion for leave to amend until seven months after the evidentiary hearing had been held and because the claims asserted in that amendment were not based on surprise, newly discovered evidence, or changed circumstance, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The appellant attempts to raise in her brief to this court the same claims that were included in the second amendment; these claims are procedurally barred. Rules 20.2(a)(3), 20.2(a)(5), 20.2(b), A.R.Cr.P.Temp."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 957 So. 2d 492 - Woods v. State · 900 So. 2d 1274 - Coral v. State

3. “[a]mendments to pleadings may be permitted at any stage of the proceedings prior to the entry of judgment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 972 So. 2d 159 - Ex Parte Jenkins · 900 So. 2d 1274 - Coral v. State