Wells K-2894 v. Petsock’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 253 · 1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 59 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Ariegwe (2007), Hakeem v. Beyer (1993)
8 federal appellate · 59 district · 8 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Barker v. Wingo · McMann v. Richardson · United States v. Marion · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[fjirst ... must show that [Trial] [Counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that [Trial] [C]ounsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, [Kikumura] must show that- the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that [Trial] [C]ounsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. 37 We disagree. We do not think pretrial incarceration of either thirteen or fourteen and one-half months demonstrates per se oppressive pretrial delay. 7 We stated in Wells: 38 [T]he seriousness of a deprivation of liberty due to pretrial incarceration will vary with the conditions of the defendant's confinement. Indeed, the [Supreme] Court held that the speedy trial guarantee was intended to prevent”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ariegwe · Hakeem v. Beyer“When a district court has denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing, we must remand for a hearing only if “the petitioner has alleged facts that, if proved, would entitle him to relief.” Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284 , 291 (3d.Cir.1991), petition for cert. filed (June 18, 1991). Thus, to merit a hearing, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, accepting the veracity of its allegations, must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test, deficient counsel and prejudice to the defense. U.S. v. Daw son, 857 F.2d 923 , 928 (3d Cir.1988). Here, Wells’ allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is impaled on the second prong of the Court’s analysis in Strickland.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Campbell v. Burris
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.