913 So. 2d 460 - Hamm v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Recitation of allegations without citation to any legal authority and without adequate recitation of the facts relied upon has been deemed a waiver of the arguments listed.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stoves v. State · Scott v. State

2. “"To show that counsel's performance was deficient a petitioner must satisfy the test articulated by the United State Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The petitioner must show: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. "`Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. Cf. Engle v. Isaac , 456 U.S. 107 , 133-134 (1982). A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy." See Michel v. Louisiana , [ 350 U.S. 91 ], at 101 [(1955)]. There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hodges v. State · 991 So. 2d 313 - McNabb v. State

3. ““Although in federal court a habeas petitioner can allege that the ineffective assistance of counsel was ‘cause and prejudice’ to excuse a procedural default, e.g., Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 , 106 S.Ct. 2639 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986), Alabama state courts in postconviction proceedings do not recognize the cause and prejudice exception. We recently stated, ‘Alabama has never recognized any exceptions to the procedural default grounds contained in Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P. We have repeatedly stated that the procedural bars in Rule 32 apply equally to all cases, including those in which the death penalty has been imposed.’ Hooks v. State, 822 So.2d 476, 481 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 51 So. 3d 1094 - Ingram v. State · 157 So. 3d 131 - Jarrod Taylor v. State of Alabama.