Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 903 F.2d 280 - Hoffman v. Leeke

Hoffman v. Leeke’s Empirical Analysis

903 F.2d 280 · 1990

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
4
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Lambey (1992), United States v. Infante (2005)

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

300199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brady v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan

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

  1. “A defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive what he does not know,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t is difficult to understand, and indeed we do not, how advising one client to give a statement and testify to the essential elements of a crime allegedly committed by a second client is not a conflict of interest.” Hoffman at 286 . . There was certain testimony produced at the hearing which indicated that Rasnic primarily dealt with and advised Elic. Roy Lee testified that he never spoke to Rasnic alone and that his father counselled him regarding the agreement. (T at 7). Also, Rasnic stated that he never spoke to Roy Lee without Elic being present (T at 48). Rasnic further stated that he often directed the conversation to Elic because Elic was "calling the shots.” (T at 35). .It is important to note that even Rasnic may have been confused as to this point. Rasnic testified at the hearing that once the plea offer was made he sensed "that Roy Lee was not freely exercising whatever rights he might have”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was in the unacceptable position of having his own attorney help the state procure a witness against him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.