Henderson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 534 · 1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2014
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Teague v. Lane · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Sumner v. Mata · Wheat v. United States · Bullock v. United States
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have consistently held that the right to effective assistance of counsel may be waived, provided that waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent. See United States v. Bryant, 766 F.2d 370 , 377 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 , 106 S.Ct. 790 , 88 L.Ed.2d 768 (1986); United States v. Poston, 727 F.2d 734 , 738 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 962 , 104 S.Ct. 2179 , 80 L.Ed.2d 561 (1984); Larry Buffalo Chief v. State of South Dakota, 425 F.2d 271 , 280 (8th Cir.1970). Once a valid waiver is found to exist, we need not inquire whether an “actual conflict of interest exists.” Bryant, 766 F.2d at 378 ; see also Larry Buffalo Chief, 425 F.2d at 280 . Therefore, a waiver can be valid if obtained during a state trial court proceeding even if the state court does not conduct an on-the-record inquiry, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. See Larry Buffalo Chief, 425 F.2d at 280 ; accord Harris v. State, 609 S.W.2d 723 , 724 (Mo.App. 1980) (testimony at 27.26 hearing sufficient to determine whether waiver valid); Davis v. State, 573 S.W.2d 736 , 737 (Mo.App.1978); cf. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 346, 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 1717, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (“nothing in our precedents suggests that the Sixth Amendment requires state courts themselves to initiate inquiries into the propriety of multiple representation in every case”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Plunk v. Hobbs · Plunk v. Hobbs“Because we find that Henderson waived her right to conflict-free counsel, we need not reach the merits of [the ineffective assistance claim]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'the details of [Massie's] possible conflict and the potential perils of such conflict.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hayes v. Al Lockhart
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.