Freeman v. Class’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ailure ... was highly prejudicial to the petitioner to the extent that the fundamental fairness of the proceeding and the conviction was undermined[,]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Freeman v. Class“[f]ailure to give a cautionary instruction in all probability produced some effect upon the jury verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Freeman v. Class
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.