Zagorski v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In prospective cases, when a defendant, against his counsel's advise [sic], refuses to permit the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence, counsel must inform the trial court of these circumstances on the record, outside the presence of the jury. The trial court must then take the following steps to protect the defendant's interests and to preserve a complete record: "1. Inform the defendant of his right to present mitigating evidence and make a determination on the record whether the defendant understands this right and the importance of presenting mitigating evidence in both the guilt phase and sentencing phase of trial; "2. Inquire of both the defendant and counsel whether they have discussed the importance of mitigating evidence, the risks of foregoing the use of such evidence, and the possibility that such evidence could be used to offset aggravating circumstances; and "3 . After being assured the defendant understands the importance of mitigation, inquire of the defendant whether he or she desires to forego the presentation of mitigating evidence. "This procedure will insure that the accused has intelligently and voluntarily made a decision to forego mitigating evidence. Trial judges, however, shall not inquire of counsel as to the content of any known mitigating evidence. To hold otherwise would potentially force counsel to act against the client's wishes and would risk the disclosure of privileged or confidential information."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kiser · State v. Smith

2. “"The petitioner contends that his trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence despite his instructions to the contrary. Generally, a defense attorney's failure to investigate and prepare for a possible capital sentencing hearing is below the range of competence demanded of criminal attorneys. See California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 , 107 S.Ct. 837 , 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987); Goad [v. State ], 938 S.W.2d [363] at 369 [(Tenn.1996)]. . . . "In this case, petitioner's counsel recognized the importance of exploring and presenting mitigating evidence. They yielded, however, to the petitioner's demands that no evidence be offered in mitigation upon his conviction of first degree murder. The petitioner understood that he faced the death penalty, but he nevertheless instructed his attorneys to refrain from any investigation into his family background and to essentially forego any defense at the sentencing phase. ". . . . "When a competent defendant knowingly and voluntarily chooses a lawful course of action or defense strategy, counsel is essentially bound by that decision. If the defendant is prejudiced in some respect by his own decision, he should not later be heard to complain about those consequences by challenging the conduct of his counsel. See State v. Dunn, 224 Tenn. 255 , 453 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Tenn.1970); Dukes v. State, 578 S.W.2d 659, 665 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitehead v. State · 930 So. 2d 524 - Adkins v. State

3. “`When a competent defendant knowingly and voluntarily chooses a lawful course of action or defense strategy, counsel is essentially bound by that decision. If the defendant is prejudiced in some respect by his own decision, he should not later be heard to complain about those consequences by challenging the conduct of his counsel. See State v. Dunn , 224 Tenn. 255 , 453 S.W.2d 777 , 779 (Tenn. 1970); Dukes v. State , 578 S.W.2d 659 , 665 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Whitehead v. State · 930 So. 2d 524 - Adkins v. State