966 So. 2d 337 - Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 24 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[D]efense counsel engaged in all reasonable steps necessary to investigate and develop mitigation for the penalty phase of the trial. As noted above, he retained Dr. Berland as soon as he obtained the necessary medical records. Within three days of being informed that the first expert was too busy to evaluate Cox, he retained Dr. McMahon, a forensic psychologist with over twenty years experience. McMahon spent thirteen hours with Cox, reviewed a plethora of documentation with regard to his mental health, and performed a battery of tests. Although Dr. McMahon ultimately concluded that the statutory mental health mitigators were not applicable to Cox, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that a reasonable investigation into mental health mitigation is not rendered incompetent merely because the defendant has now secured the testimony of a more favorable mental health expert. We conclude that defense counsel was not deficient with regard to the timing of meeting with the family because any delay was due to the fact that Cox had informed defense counsel that he did not want his family involved. A strategic decision was made that the client’s wishes would be honored because counsel wanted to establish a relationship in which Cox had full trust. Upon receiving permission from Cox to speak with family members, counsel proceeded to Kentucky. He then accompanied Cox’s father in an attempt to investigate the area where Cox was raised and to contact witnesses who might be able to offer ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cox v. McNeil

2. “[C]ounsel was not deficient for failing to investigate or provide Dr. McMahon with information about head injuries or mental illness suffered by Cox because the medical records from the motorcycle accident did not indicate that Cox suffered any type of head injury. Further, Cox did not seek medical treatment after the mule incident so there was no documentation with regard to whether or how seriously he was injured. Finally, Cox neither informed counsel that he had suffered head trauma nor reported any symptoms indicative of head injury or mental illness. Finally, even though counsel could have presented additional witnesses to offer evidence in mitigation, he made a strategic decision to limit the number of witnesses so the jury would not lose interest. He also decided not to present the testimony of witnesses who could potentially present harmful information about Cox.... Even if we were to assume deficient performance, we conclude that there is no prejudice. ... Having reviewed the evidence presented during the postconviction hearing, we conclude that Cox was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present [additional] testimony for three reasons. First, although Dr. Berland testified that witnesses reported that Cox had exhibited symptoms of psychosis, Dr. McMahon opined that there was a total lack of consistency and concordance between the witness reports. She further noted that Dr. Berland’s report at times did not accurately reflect the witnesses’ statements. Additional”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cox v. McNeil

3. “In his third claim, Williamson asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to question Panoyan as to a prior contradictory statement Panoyan initially gave to police officers when Panoyan told them that he never saw the assailant without his mask and could not determine even the assailant’s race. The postconviction court denied relief as follows: Having reviewed the record, this Court agrees with the State that Capital Collateral Counsel initially mis-characterized Panoyan’s November 1988 statements. Additionally, the jury was informed that Panoyan failed to identify the Defendant or his brother in Panoyan’s initial statement to the police that evening, even though Panoyan provided an account of what happened at the Decker home. However, he gave inaccurate information as to the identity of the assailant. On direct examination, the State elicited from Panoyan that because he was afraid, he gave an inaccurate description to the police because of what he saw at the Decker home that evening and what Dana Williamson said he would do to Panoyan’s family. The record also reflects that defense counsel attacked Panoyan’s credibility from the onset of the trial, starting with his opening statement arguing that “Panoyan was going to come in and tell the jury ‘one hell of a story’ to avoid the electric chair.” Furthermore, defense counsel also reminded the jury that Panoyan was an original co-defendant in the case who never identified the Williamsons until three years after”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 123 So. 3d 1060 - Williamson v. State