987 So. 2d 1186 - Waldrop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]rial counsel had no reason to retain another psychologist to dispute the first expert’s findings. ‘A postconviction petition does not show ineffective assistance merely because it presents a new expert opinion that is different from the theory used at trial.’ State v. Combs, 100 Ohio App.3d 90, 103 , 652 N.E.2d 205, 213 (1994). See also State v. Frogge, 359 N.C. 228, 244-45 , 607 S.E.2d 627, 637 (2005). ‘Counsel is not ineffective for failing to shop around for additional experts.’ Smulls v. State, 71 S.W.3d 138, 156 (Mo.2002). ‘Counsel is not required to “continue looking for experts just because the one he has consulted gave an unfavorable opinion.” Sidebottom v. Delo, 46 F.3d 744, 753 (8th Cir.1995).’ Walls v. Bowersox, 151 F.3d 827, 835 (8th Cir.1998).””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMillan v. State · Spencer v. State

2. “' "A defense attorney is not required to investigate all leads, however, and 'there is no per se rule that evidence of a criminal defendant's troubled childhood must always be presented as mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of a capital case.' " Bolender [v. Singletary] , 16 F.3d [1547,] at 1557 [ (11th Cir.1994) ] (footnote omitted)(quoting Devier v. Zant , 3 F.3d 1445 , 1453 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1161], 115 S.Ct. 1125 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1087 (1995) ). "Indeed, '[c]ounsel has no absolute duty to present mitigating character evidence at all, and trial counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel.' " Bolender , 16 F.3d at 1557 (citations omitted).' " Marek v. Singletary , 62 F.3d 1295 , 1300 (11th Cir.1995).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. State · Davis v. State

3. “' "The reasonableness of counsel's investigation and preparation for the penalty phase, of course, often depends critically upon the information supplied by the defendant. E.g. Commonwealth v. Uderra , 550 Pa. 389 , 706 A.2d 334 , 340-41 (1998) (collecting cases). Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to introduce information uniquely within the knowledge of the defendant and his family which is not provided to counsel.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. State · Scott v. State