Jones v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “In the first place, Jones did have counsel at the time he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. If there had been anything to appeal, counsel would no doubt have appealed. Jones does not claim that there would have been any basis for an appeal, and, in view of the fact that the convictions were based on pleas of guilty, we cannot think of any basis, either. Jones points out that the bill which ultimately reduced the penalty to seven years was introduced in the Missouri State Senate on January 9, 1989, so a lawyer, if one had been appointed for him, could have found out about the bill, followed its progress, and been ready to file an appropriate motion at the time it became effective. We are unaware of any authority that would impose such a far-ranging obligation on a state. One against whom a criminal prosecution has been filed is entitled to counsel, either retained or appointed. But once the prosecution is complete, there is no requirement, at least none in the federal Constitution, that counsel stay with the defendant, so to speak, in case some later event, not even foreseeable at the time of the conviction, should occur to entitle the defendant to some sort of relief. On this theory, every person convicted of crime would be assigned counsel by the state simply for the purpose of watching to see if anything potentially favorable, in the form of a new law or otherwise, might happen. We can understand Jones’ disappointment that, as things worked out in his case, he had not lawye”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKenzie v. Kemna

2. “An incorrect application of state law, without more, does not establish that a prisoner is being held in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States, which is a prerequisite for relief under section 2254.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cranford v. Al Lockhart