Morris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 41 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Visger v. State · Rogers v. State

2. “`Defense counsel bears the primary responsibility for advising the defendant of his right to testify or not to testify, the strategic implications of each choice, and that it is ultimately for the defendant himself to decide.... Moreover, if counsel believes that it would be unwise for the defendant to testify, counsel may, and indeed should, advise the client in the strongest possible terms not to testify.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 997 So. 2d 1284 - HAQ v. State · 18 So. 3d 473 - Beasley v. State

3. “Where the defendant claims a violation of his right to testify by defense counsel, the essence of the claim is that the action or inaction of the attorney deprived the defendant of the ability to choose whether or not to testify in his own behalf. In other words, by not protecting the defendant's right to testify, defense counsel's performance fell below the constitutional minimum, thereby violating the first prong of the Strickland test. For example, . . . if defense counsel never informed the defendant of the right to testify, and that the ultimate decision belongs to the defendant, counsel would have neglected the vital professional responsibility of ensuring that the defendant's right to testify is protected and that any waiver of that right is knowing[, intelligent,] and voluntary. Under such circumstances, defense counsel has not acted "`within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,'" and the defendant clearly has not received reasonably effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770-71 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 So. 3d 473 - Beasley v. State