Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" ' " 'If the record is silent as to the reasoning behind counsel's actions, the presumption of effectiveness is sufficient to deny relief on [an] ineffective assistance of counsel claim.' " Davis v. State , 9 So.3d 539 , 546 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Howard v. State , 239 S.W.3d 359 , 367 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) ). " ' " ' "An ambiguous or silent record is not sufficient to disprove the strong and continuing presumption [of effective representation]. Therefore, 'where the record is incomplete or unclear about [counsel]'s actions, we will presume that he did what he should have done, and that he exercised reasonable professional judgment.' " Chandler v. United States , 218 F.3d 1305 , 1314 n. 15 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (quoting Williams v. Head , 185 F.3d 1223 , 1228 (11th Cir.1999) ).' " " ' Davis , 9 So.3d at 546 (quoting Grayson v. Thompson , 257 F.3d 1194 , 1218 (11th Cir.2001) ).' "”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whited v. State · Hall v. State

2. ““In paragraphs 191-192, Clark contends that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to give an effective penalty phase closing argument. Specifically, Clark argues that trial counsel failed to explain why certain facts were mitigating, failed to present a ‘coherent mitigation theory,’ and spent much of the closing argument arguing against the death penalty. At the hearing, Clark discussed a trial attorney’s duty to guide the jury in opening and closing arguments. (Tr. 89) Clark also inquired into whether trial counsel remembered arguing against the death penalty during the penalty phase, but trial counsel could not recall what they argued. (Tr. 27) “Clark failed to prove that trial counsel were deficient. Clark did not ask any questions regarding why trial counsel chose their specific closing argument. In addition, several of trial counsel’s responses indicated that their closing argument was a deliberate and strategic decision. While trial counsel could not recall making the specific arguments that they did, when asked whether he remembered arguing that the death-penalty was wrong, lead trial counsel responded, ‘I hope I did.’, (Tr. 28) In addition, trial counsel’s argument against the death penalty was -aimed at keeping the jury from using vengeance or deterrence as a reason for imposing death. (R. 1656-58) Because Clark offered no evidence to show why trial counsel chose their closing argument and because the record and evidence presented at the hearing indicate that tr”

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

3. ““Counsel have a duty to investigate but this duty is confined to reasonable investigation. See Strickland [v. Washington ], 466 U.S. [668] at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066 [ (1984) ]. In Funchess v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 683, 689 (11th Cir.1985), this Court found counsel reasonably investigated despite the fact that he had not investigated his client’s psychological problems because the client never told him of any problems and the competency evaluation did not suggest any problems existed. The client also acted competently while assisting counsel in preparing his case. See id. Thus the court held that counsel was not put on notice of any problems and could not be faulted for not pursuing the matter. See id.; cf. Collins v. Francis, 728 F.2d 1322, 1349 (11th Cir.1984) (determining that counsel who failed to investigate witnesses that the defendant did not tell him about was not ineffective). “Reliance upon some family members[’] statements that other mitigation witnesses did not exist was considered permissible in Singleton v. Thigpen, 847 F.2d 668, 670 (11th Cir.1988). Rejecting a per se rule of ineffective assistance where counsel does not consult family members, we held in Williams v. Head, 185 F.3d 1223 , 1237 (11th Cir.1999), that counsel’s investigation was reasonable when he did not interview the defendant’s sister or father, the latter because the defendant had not lived with him for very long. ‘[Strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable pre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 95 So. 3d 26 - Washington v. State