Bassette v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
915 F.2d 932 · 1990
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Clisby v. Jones (1992), United States v. Higgs (2003)
41 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 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. § 1654 · 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Faretta v. California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ake announces a new rule which is not to be applied retroactively.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to conduct a sufficient investigation of his alibi witness ... so as to realize that she was lying in her testimony.... This is not evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel, but is only evidence that Bassette introduced his attorney to a witness who was willing to lie under oath.... The circumstances in this case reflect that appellant produced certain relatives and close acquaintances who would testify that he was with them on the night of the murder. The attorney’s performance is not constitutionally defective in this instance because he did not go to the college and interview [the niece’s] instructor in an effort to verify her testimony. There is no rule that counsel must disbelieve prospective witnesses presented to him by his client, or that he must spend considerable time and effort in testing the veracity of such witnesses or attempting to disprove their statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although under ... the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution a defendant has a right of self-representation ... this right is not absolute, and after a defendant has proceeded to trial with an attorney, the right to proceed pro se rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Appellant argues that under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right of self-representation; however, this right is not absolute and may be waived or limited if not raised before trial. Faretta does not deal with the situation of a defendant attempting to proceed pro se after trial has begun.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brown
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.