618:
sentence can be approximated only if the sentencer is fully informed of all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine." The defendant's attorney is responsible for doing that. That and in light of the "severity and irrevocability of the sanction at stake," the standard for effective assistance in capital sentencing proceedings must be especially stringent. Accordingly, Marshall believed that a person on death row seeking relief from his death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance should not have to show a reasonable probability that he would not have received a death sentence if counsel had presented more mitigating evidence. Because it was clear that
Washington's attorney had failed to investigate and then present large amounts of information to the sentencing judge, Marshall concluded that Washington's lawyer was ineffective.
133:
413:, ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. The trial court denied relief based on the record evidence. They found that "the record affirmatively demonstrates beyond any doubt that even if had done each of the... things [that respondent alleged counsel had failed to do at the time of sentencing, there is not even the remotest chance that the outcome would have been any different. The plain fact is that the aggravating circumstances proved in this case were completely
597:
resources to devote to a given case." Marshall also disputed that counsel's performance must be given especially wide latitude, since "much of the work involved in preparing for trial, applying for bail, conferring with one's client, making timely objections to significant, arguably erroneous rulings of the trial judge, and filing a notice of appeal if there are colorable grounds therefor could profitably be made the subject of uniform standards."
24:
390:"fence" where they killed her and severely wounded several other occupants. On September 27 they contacted Frank Meli and convinced him to come to Washington's home under the pretense of concluding an automobile sale. Washington tied Meli to his bed where he was held captive for two days. On September 29, Washington stabbed Meli eleven times and buried the body in his backyard.
430:, ineffective assistance of counsel based on the same errors asserted in the state court. After an evidentiary hearing at which the trial judge testified the district court concluded that "there does not appear to be a likelihood, or even a significant possibility" that any errors made by trial counsel had prejudiced the outcome at sentencing.
402:, Washington admitted to some past burglaries. He told the trial he had no significant criminal record and committed the crimes under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. The trial judge told Washington that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility."
518:
contrast, strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that "reasonable professional judgments" justify the curtailment of counsel's investigation. Counsel is strongly presumed to have "made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment".
542:
the heinousness of
Washington's crimes, and Washington's own statements to counsel. In view of those considerations, the Court could not conclude that additional mitigating evidence would have given rise to a reasonable probability that the trial judge would have sentenced Washington to life in prison rather than death.
587:
He objected that the Court's newly crafted test was unlikely to "improve the adjudication of Sixth
Amendment claims." He considered the performance standard "so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation in the manner in which the Sixth Amendment
541:
Applying the test to
Washington's case, the Court concluded that counsel did not perform deficiently and that Washington suffered no prejudice. The counsel's decision to focus on remorse and emotional distress was a reasonable strategic decision in light of the trial judge's stated views on remorse,
532:
A reasonable probability is one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. When the defendant challenges his conviction, he must show that counsel's errors prevented the jury from forming a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. When he challenges a death sentence, as
Washington is doing, he must
525:
the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant has had no counsel at all or when counsel has labored under a conflict of interest, the Court will presume prejudice, but ordinarily, the defendant must show that counsel's deficient performance had
447:
decided to rehear the case en banc and reversed the Fifth
Circuit's ruling, stating that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to "reasonably effective" counsel. After outlining standards for judging whether defense counsel fulfilled the duty to investigate nonstatutory mitigating
564:
Counsel's general duty to investigate ... takes on supreme importance to a defendant in the context of developing mitigating evidence to present to a judge or jury considering the sentence of death; claims of ineffective assistance in the performance of that duty should therefore be considered with
517:
Counsel does, however, have a duty to make "reasonable investigations, or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary." After all, strategic decisions made in light of a reasonable investigation and compared to plausible options are "virtually unchallengeable". By
442:
which require that a petitioner carry the burden" of showing prejudice. They also said "the court erred in attaching any probative value whatsoever to Judge Fuller's testimony" about whether the errors asserted by
Washington would have made a difference at sentencing. After the Fifth Circuit Court
421:
confession plus numerous aggravating factors limit the alternatives of the most zealous of advocates...counsel's failure to investigate medical reports and cross-examine the medical examiners could not be prejudicial since the facts of the reports were admitted by defendant in his confession. Under
617:
Finally, Marshall took issue with the Court's conclusion that the same standard for ineffectiveness should apply in a capital sentencing proceeding as applies at an ordinary trial. The capital sentencing process is intended to be especially reliable, and "reliability in the imposition of the death
239:
To obtain relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show both that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that if counsel had performed adequately,
389:
and an accomplice decided to rob and kill Daniel
Pridgen, a homosexual minister, on September 20, 1976. Washington's accomplice lured Pridgen to bed and covered his face with a pillow while Washington stabbed him to death. Three days later they went to the home of Katrina Birk who they knew as a
377:
The decision was a compromise by the majority in which the varying "tests for ineffective performance of counsel" among the federal circuits and state supreme courts were forced into a singular middle ground test. State governments are free to create a test even more favorable to an appellant.
596:
one? After all, Marshall pointed out, "a person of means, by selecting a lawyer and paying him enough to ensure he prepares thoroughly, usually can obtain better representation than that available to an indigent defendant, who must rely on appointed counsel, who, in turn, has limited time and
433:
The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said "the district court employed an incorrect method of analysis". By holding that Washington had failed to show prejudice "the district court was, apparently, borrowing from the analysis employed in
509:
In order to show that counsel's performance was "deficient," the defendant must show that it fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness." The Court emphasized that there is no "checklist for judicial evaluation of attorney performance". Citing
526:
an adverse effect on the defense. Since the goal is to ensure that the defendant had a fair trial, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
2397:
405:
Finding numerous aggravating circumstances and no significant mitigating circumstances, the trial judge sentenced
Washington to death on each of the murder counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Washington's sentences on direct appeal.
609:
matters just as much. "The majority contends that the Sixth Amendment is not violated when a manifestly guilty defendant is convicted after a trial in which he was represented by a manifestly ineffective attorney. I cannot agree."
504:
The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial system that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
613:
Marshall worried that the Court's admonition to future judges, presented with ineffective assistance claims should defer to counsel's strategic judgments, placed too heavy a burden on defendants making such claims.
600:
Marshall also disputed that it should be made the defendant's burden to show prejudice from an allegedly incompetent attorney's performance. Prejudice cannot be measured solely with respect to the fairness of the
569:
However, because Justice Brennan believed that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment, he would have vacated Washington's death sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
203:
537:
differently. The assessments must be made with respect to the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing so that when the prosecution's case is weak, the defendant will more easily show prejudice.
2392:
529:
The Court outlined several crucial guidelines to consider when applying the Strickland test: most importantly, the Court found that a "mechanical" application of the test was the wrong approach.
514:
the Court asserted that a checklist "would interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel and restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."
493:
stated in dictum that "the right to counsel is the right to effective counsel" confusion persisted in Circuit Courts about the standard for constitutionally "adequate legal assistance".
794:
779:
444:
207:
881:""It's Like Deja Vu All Over Again": Williams v. Taylor, Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla v. Beard and a (Partial) Return to the Guidelines Approach to the Effective Assistance of Counsel"
986:
635:
364:
222:
174:
1063:
556:
concurred in the result because he believed that the Court's new test for ineffective assistance, particularly the prejudice prong, would not impede the presentation of
484:
371:
350:
2314:
422:
the circumstances cross-examination could have accomplished little. Indeed, cross-examination is a trial tactic choice properly within counsel's discretion.
2387:
812:
Blume, John H.; Seeds, Christopher (2005). "Reliability Matters: Reassociating Bagley Materiality, Strickland Prejudice, and Cumulative Harmless Error".
2348:
41:
448:
circumstances and whether counsel's errors were sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversal, it remanded the case for application of the standards.
1054:
2402:
588:
is interpreted and applied by different courts." What does "reasonable" mean? Should counsel's performance be judged by reference to a reasonable
693:"The Name Is the Same, But the Facts Have Been Changed To Protect the Attorneys: Strickland, Judicial Discretion and Appellate Decision-Making"
746:
Kastenberg, Joshua E. (2013). "Nearing Thirty Years: The Burger Court, Strickland v. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel".
2155:
1447:
938:"The Strickland Standard for Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Emasculating the Sixth Amendment in the Guise of Due Process"
88:
1928:
1359:
1209:
367:
137:
60:
2114:
469:
107:
937:
905:
67:
2075:
1976:
500:
standard is based on the Sixth Amendment's purpose to protect the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause:
1789:
45:
1626:
1591:
1367:
74:
960:
1957:
1047:
398:
Washington pled guilty in a Florida trial court to an indictment that included three capital murder charges. During the
1813:
1506:
859:"Courts' Increasing Consideration of Behavioral Genetics Evidence in Criminal Cases: Results of a Longitudinal Study"
670:
Strickland was the Superintendent of the Florida State Prison, where Washington was incarcerated upon his sentencing.
56:
1383:
1292:
2019:
1332:
1324:
34:
1908:
1701:
1479:
1316:
1228:
1089:
715:
2294:
2102:
1805:
1709:
1471:
1455:
1431:
1236:
1105:
487:
right to counsel "plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment". Even after
2163:
1883:
1725:
1610:
1583:
1575:
1415:
1260:
1040:
918:
553:
214:
1006:
2067:
1837:
1757:
1423:
1375:
1193:
489:
465:
307:
263:
451:
The State of Florida appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
2324:
2179:
2139:
2043:
1399:
1268:
990:
226:
166:
1276:
81:
2203:
2147:
2035:
2027:
1829:
1682:
1407:
1113:
2332:
2235:
2051:
1920:
1781:
1773:
1765:
1514:
1252:
1201:
1077:
287:
511:
2356:
2302:
2227:
2195:
2083:
1936:
1797:
1661:
1546:
1538:
1308:
1300:
1155:
581:
1024:
521:
However, not all errors on counsel's part justify setting aside the judgment; rather, they must
417:..." The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Washington's sentences on direct appeal, holding that:
2219:
2211:
2059:
2003:
1995:
1864:
1741:
1618:
1554:
1530:
1522:
1351:
578:
557:
534:
299:
295:
275:
2340:
2259:
2187:
2131:
1845:
1717:
1463:
641:
255:
1749:
1733:
1566:
1391:
1097:
832:
1032:
626:
Washington was executed on July 13, 1984, two months after the Supreme Court's decision.
533:
show a reasonable probability that the sentencer would have balanced the aggravation and
2275:
2251:
2243:
2011:
1498:
1284:
997:
858:
649:
283:
2381:
2267:
1821:
1439:
1244:
399:
199:
692:
2171:
1147:
1134:
443:
of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 divided the Fifth Circuit, the newly created
426:
Washington then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court alleging,
169:
271:
23:
880:
370:
case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's
218:
181:
476:
Counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness"
1015:
2398:
United States Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel case law
374:
right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
324:
O'Connor, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
409:
Washington then sought collateral relief in state court alleging,
716:"Ruling on lawyers could prompt more appeals by death row inmates"
204:
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
211:
1955:
1906:
1680:
1649:
1174:
1132:
1075:
1036:
156:
Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, v. Washington
132:
17:
545:
The majority reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
483:
The Supreme Court began its decision with the idea that the
479:
Counsel's "deficient performance prejudiced the defense"
919:"Amdt6.6.5.5 Deficient Representation Under Strickland"
833:"Challenging the Habeas Process Rather Than the Result"
445:
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
240:
the result of the proceeding would have been different.
2393:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
636:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 466
2313:
2286:
2113:
2094:
1987:
1968:
1875:
1856:
1693:
1602:
1565:
1490:
1343:
1220:
1185:
344:
336:
328:
320:
315:
244:
233:
194:
189:
161:
151:
144:
125:
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
1048:
961:"Confessed Murderer of 3 Executed in Florida"
874:
872:
8:
852:
850:
741:
739:
737:
1965:
1952:
1903:
1690:
1677:
1646:
1182:
1171:
1129:
1072:
1055:
1041:
1033:
879:Blume, John H.; Neumann, Stacy D. (2007).
122:
2349:Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California
814:Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
748:Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
807:
805:
803:
683:
663:
942:University of Pennsylvania Law Review
468:, established a two-part test for an
120:1984 United States Supreme Court case
7:
46:adding citations to reliable sources
1448:Southern Union Co. v. United States
1929:United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
1360:Almendarez-Torres v. United States
1210:Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
605:of the trial; the fairness of the
138:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
2388:United States Supreme Court cases
1876:Restrictions on cross-examination
993:668 (1984) is available from:
560:on behalf of capital defendants:
470:ineffective assistance of counsel
885:American Journal of Criminal Law
697:Valparaiso University Law Review
131:
22:
1977:United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
959:Rangel, Jesus (July 14, 1984).
714:Skene, Neil (January 6, 1983).
33:needs additional citations for
2403:1984 in United States case law
1790:Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
1293:Rosales-Lopez v. United States
1:
1064:United States Sixth Amendment
837:Washington and Lee Law Review
795:673 F. 2d 879 (5th Cir. 1982)
780:673 F. 2d 879 (5th Cir. 1982)
584:from the majority's holding.
363:, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a
1958:Assistance of Counsel Clause
691:O'Meara, Gregory J. (2008).
464:The Court, in a decision by
1507:Rassmussen v. United States
831:Marceau, Justin F. (2012).
730:– via Newspapers.com.
2419:
1857:Face-to-face confrontation
1627:Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado
1325:McDonnell v. United States
1016:Oyez (oral argument audio)
57:"Strickland v. Washington"
1964:
1951:
1915:
1909:Compulsory Process Clause
1902:
1702:Reynolds v. United States
1689:
1676:
1656:
1645:
1480:Erlinger v. United States
1333:United States v. Tsarnaev
1317:Skilling v. United States
1229:Reynolds v. United States
1181:
1170:
1142:
1128:
1090:Klopfer v. North Carolina
1084:
1071:
863:Michigan State Law Review
592:attorney or a reasonable
349:
249:
238:
130:
2295:Massiah v. United States
2124:Strickland v. Washington
2103:Glasser v. United States
2076:Nichols v. United States
1806:Bullcoming v. New Mexico
1710:Dowdell v. United States
1472:United States v. Haymond
1456:Alleyne v. United States
1432:Cunningham v. California
1237:Glasser v. United States
1106:Doggett v. United States
983:Strickland v. Washington
792:Washington v. Strickland
777:Washington v. Strickland
765:Strickland v. Washington
360:Strickland v. Washington
126:Strickland v. Washington
2164:Glover v. United States
1884:Chambers v. Mississippi
1726:Bruton v. United States
1694:Out-of-court statements
1611:Tanner v. United States
1603:Impeachment of verdicts
1584:Burton v. United States
1576:United States v. Dawson
1416:United States v. Booker
1384:Harris v. United States
1261:Witherspoon v. Illinois
857:Denno, Deborah (2011).
145:Argued January 10, 1984
2287:Uncounseled statements
2115:Ineffective assistance
2068:Pennsylvania v. Finley
1838:Samia v. United States
1758:Crawford v. Washington
1592:Smith v. United States
1424:Washington v. Recuenco
1376:Apprendi v. New Jersey
1368:Jones v. United States
1194:Cheff v. Schnackenberg
923:Constitution Annotated
567:
507:
424:
387:David Leroy Washington
264:William J. Brennan Jr.
221:1982); cert. granted,
2325:Faretta v. California
2180:Woodford v. Visciotti
2140:Kimmelman v. Morrison
2044:Argersinger v. Hamlin
1400:Blakely v. Washington
1269:Ham v. South Carolina
1176:Impartial Jury Clause
562:
502:
419:
351:U.S. Const. amend. VI
2204:Wright v. Van Patten
2148:Lockhart v. Fretwell
2036:Anders v. California
2028:Gideon v. Wainwright
1830:Hemphill v. New York
1814:Williams v. Illinois
1683:Confrontation Clause
1408:Schriro v. Summerlin
1114:Betterman v. Montana
936:Gabriel, Richard L.
720:St. Petersburg Times
490:McMann v. Richardson
460:Opinion of the Court
180:104 S. Ct. 2052; 80
147:Decided May 14, 1984
42:improve this article
2333:McKaskle v. Wiggins
2236:Padilla v. Kentucky
2052:Gagnon v. Scarpelli
2020:Hamilton v. Alabama
1921:Washington v. Texas
1782:Giles v. California
1774:Whorton v. Bockting
1766:Davis v. Washington
1515:Williams v. Florida
1253:Sheppard v. Maxwell
1202:Duncan v. Louisiana
1078:Speedy Trial Clause
1007:Library of Congress
558:mitigating evidence
535:mitigation evidence
308:Sandra Day O'Connor
288:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
2357:Indiana v. Edwards
2303:Brewer v. Williams
2228:Porter v. McCollum
2196:Holland v. Jackson
2156:Williams v. Taylor
2084:Alabama v. Shelton
1937:Taylor v. Illinois
1798:Michigan v. Bryant
1662:Rabe v. Washington
1651:Information Clause
1547:Ramos v. Louisiana
1539:Burch v. Louisiana
1491:Size and unanimity
1309:Morgan v. Illinois
1301:Wainwright v. Witt
1156:Presley v. Georgia
965:The New York Times
908:] (D.C. Cir. 1979)
574:Dissenting opinion
565:commensurate care.
549:Concurring opinion
260:Associate Justices
206:; reversed by the
2375:
2374:
2371:
2370:
2367:
2366:
2220:Wong v. Belmontes
2212:Bobby v. Van Hook
2060:Scott v. Illinois
2004:Johnson v. Zerbst
1996:Powell v. Alabama
1947:
1946:
1898:
1897:
1894:
1893:
1865:Maryland v. Craig
1742:Illinois v. Allen
1672:
1671:
1641:
1640:
1637:
1636:
1619:Warger v. Shauers
1555:Edwards v. Vannoy
1531:Ballew v. Georgia
1523:Apodaca v. Oregon
1352:Walton v. Arizona
1166:
1165:
1124:
1123:
622:Subsequent events
356:
355:
296:William Rehnquist
276:Thurgood Marshall
118:
117:
110:
92:
2410:
2341:Rock v. Arkansas
2260:Lafler v. Cooper
2188:Wiggins v. Smith
2132:Nix v. Whiteside
1966:
1953:
1904:
1846:Smith v. Arizona
1718:Pointer v. Texas
1691:
1678:
1647:
1464:Hurst v. Florida
1277:Ristaino v. Ross
1183:
1172:
1130:
1073:
1057:
1050:
1043:
1034:
1029:
1023:
1020:
1014:
1011:
1005:
1002:
996:
969:
968:
956:
950:
949:
933:
927:
926:
915:
909:
899:
893:
892:
876:
867:
866:
854:
845:
844:
828:
822:
821:
809:
798:
789:
783:
774:
768:
762:
756:
755:
743:
732:
731:
729:
727:
711:
705:
704:
688:
671:
668:
642:Wiggins v. Smith
579:Justice Marshall
466:Justice O'Connor
256:Warren E. Burger
245:Court membership
229:1105 (1983).
208:Eleventh Circuit
135:
134:
123:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
2418:
2417:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2363:
2309:
2282:
2109:
2090:
1983:
1960:
1943:
1911:
1890:
1871:
1852:
1750:Ohio v. Roberts
1734:Frazier v. Cupp
1685:
1668:
1652:
1633:
1598:
1567:Vicinage Clause
1561:
1486:
1392:Ring v. Arizona
1339:
1216:
1177:
1162:
1138:
1120:
1098:Barker v. Wingo
1080:
1067:
1061:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1003:
1000:
994:
978:
973:
972:
958:
957:
953:
935:
934:
930:
917:
916:
912:
900:
896:
878:
877:
870:
856:
855:
848:
830:
829:
825:
811:
810:
801:
790:
786:
775:
771:
763:
759:
745:
744:
735:
725:
723:
713:
712:
708:
690:
689:
685:
680:
675:
674:
669:
665:
660:
632:
624:
576:
554:Justice Brennan
551:
485:Sixth Amendment
462:
457:
396:
384:
372:Sixth Amendment
300:John P. Stevens
298:
286:
274:
185:
146:
140:
121:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
2416:
2414:
2406:
2405:
2400:
2395:
2390:
2380:
2379:
2373:
2372:
2369:
2368:
2365:
2364:
2362:
2361:
2353:
2345:
2337:
2329:
2320:
2318:
2317:representation
2311:
2310:
2308:
2307:
2299:
2290:
2288:
2284:
2283:
2281:
2280:
2276:Garza v. Idaho
2272:
2264:
2256:
2252:Premo v. Moore
2248:
2244:Sears v. Upton
2240:
2232:
2224:
2216:
2208:
2200:
2192:
2184:
2176:
2168:
2160:
2152:
2144:
2136:
2128:
2119:
2117:
2111:
2110:
2108:
2107:
2098:
2096:
2092:
2091:
2089:
2088:
2080:
2072:
2064:
2056:
2048:
2040:
2032:
2024:
2016:
2012:Betts v. Brady
2008:
2000:
1991:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1982:
1981:
1972:
1970:
1962:
1961:
1956:
1949:
1948:
1945:
1944:
1942:
1941:
1933:
1925:
1916:
1913:
1912:
1907:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1892:
1891:
1889:
1888:
1879:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1870:
1869:
1860:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1851:
1850:
1842:
1834:
1826:
1818:
1810:
1802:
1794:
1786:
1778:
1770:
1762:
1754:
1746:
1738:
1730:
1722:
1714:
1706:
1697:
1695:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1667:
1666:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1650:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1634:
1632:
1631:
1623:
1615:
1606:
1604:
1600:
1599:
1597:
1596:
1588:
1580:
1571:
1569:
1563:
1562:
1560:
1559:
1551:
1543:
1535:
1527:
1519:
1511:
1503:
1499:Maxwell v. Dow
1494:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1485:
1484:
1476:
1468:
1460:
1452:
1444:
1436:
1428:
1420:
1412:
1404:
1396:
1388:
1380:
1372:
1364:
1356:
1347:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1338:
1337:
1329:
1321:
1313:
1305:
1297:
1289:
1285:Adams v. Texas
1281:
1273:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1233:
1224:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1215:
1214:
1206:
1198:
1189:
1187:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1152:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1133:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1118:
1110:
1102:
1094:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1069:
1068:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1045:
1037:
1031:
1030:
977:
976:External links
974:
971:
970:
951:
928:
910:
894:
868:
846:
823:
799:
784:
769:
757:
733:
706:
682:
681:
679:
676:
673:
672:
662:
661:
659:
656:
655:
654:
650:Premo v. Moore
646:
638:
631:
628:
623:
620:
575:
572:
550:
547:
481:
480:
477:
461:
458:
456:
453:
395:
392:
383:
380:
354:
353:
347:
346:
342:
341:
338:
334:
333:
330:
329:Concur/dissent
326:
325:
322:
318:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
284:Harry Blackmun
261:
258:
253:
247:
246:
242:
241:
236:
235:
231:
230:
202:denied by the
196:
192:
191:
187:
186:
179:
163:
159:
158:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
136:
128:
127:
119:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2415:
2404:
2401:
2399:
2396:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2385:
2383:
2359:
2358:
2354:
2351:
2350:
2346:
2343:
2342:
2338:
2335:
2334:
2330:
2327:
2326:
2322:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2312:
2305:
2304:
2300:
2297:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2289:
2285:
2278:
2277:
2273:
2270:
2269:
2268:Buck v. Davis
2265:
2262:
2261:
2257:
2254:
2253:
2249:
2246:
2245:
2241:
2238:
2237:
2233:
2230:
2229:
2225:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2206:
2205:
2201:
2198:
2197:
2193:
2190:
2189:
2185:
2182:
2181:
2177:
2174:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2165:
2161:
2158:
2157:
2153:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2137:
2134:
2133:
2129:
2126:
2125:
2121:
2120:
2118:
2116:
2112:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2099:
2097:
2095:Conflict-free
2093:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2078:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2054:
2053:
2049:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2014:
2013:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2001:
1998:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1990:
1986:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1973:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1954:
1950:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1931:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1918:
1917:
1914:
1910:
1905:
1901:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1878:
1874:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1859:
1855:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1822:Ohio v. Clark
1819:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1768:
1767:
1763:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1664:
1663:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1648:
1644:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1605:
1601:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1570:
1568:
1564:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1495:
1493:
1489:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1440:Oregon v. Ice
1437:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1346:
1342:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1245:Irvin v. Dowd
1242:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1223:
1219:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1173:
1169:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1136:
1131:
1127:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1065:
1058:
1053:
1051:
1046:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1026:
1017:
1008:
999:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
975:
966:
962:
955:
952:
947:
943:
939:
932:
929:
924:
920:
914:
911:
907:
903:
898:
895:
890:
886:
882:
875:
873:
869:
864:
860:
853:
851:
847:
842:
838:
834:
827:
824:
819:
815:
808:
806:
804:
800:
796:
793:
788:
785:
781:
778:
773:
770:
766:
761:
758:
753:
749:
742:
740:
738:
734:
721:
717:
710:
707:
702:
698:
694:
687:
684:
677:
667:
664:
657:
652:
651:
647:
644:
643:
639:
637:
634:
633:
629:
627:
621:
619:
615:
611:
608:
604:
598:
595:
591:
585:
583:
580:
573:
571:
566:
561:
559:
555:
548:
546:
543:
539:
536:
530:
527:
524:
519:
515:
513:
506:
501:
499:
494:
492:
491:
486:
478:
475:
474:
473:
471:
467:
459:
455:Supreme Court
454:
452:
449:
446:
441:
437:
431:
429:
423:
418:
416:
412:
407:
403:
401:
400:plea colloquy
393:
391:
388:
381:
379:
375:
373:
369:
368:Supreme Court
366:
362:
361:
352:
348:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:Case opinions
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:Chief Justice
251:
250:
248:
243:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
200:habeas corpus
197:
193:
188:
183:
177:
176:
171:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
150:
143:
139:
129:
124:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
2355:
2347:
2339:
2331:
2323:
2301:
2293:
2274:
2266:
2258:
2250:
2242:
2234:
2226:
2218:
2210:
2202:
2194:
2186:
2178:
2172:Bell v. Cone
2170:
2162:
2154:
2146:
2138:
2130:
2123:
2122:
2101:
2082:
2074:
2066:
2058:
2050:
2042:
2034:
2026:
2018:
2010:
2002:
1994:
1975:
1935:
1927:
1919:
1882:
1863:
1844:
1836:
1828:
1820:
1812:
1804:
1796:
1788:
1780:
1772:
1764:
1756:
1748:
1740:
1732:
1724:
1716:
1708:
1700:
1660:
1625:
1617:
1609:
1590:
1587:(1905, 1906)
1582:
1574:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1529:
1521:
1513:
1505:
1497:
1478:
1470:
1462:
1454:
1446:
1438:
1430:
1422:
1414:
1406:
1398:
1390:
1382:
1374:
1366:
1358:
1350:
1331:
1323:
1315:
1307:
1299:
1291:
1283:
1275:
1267:
1259:
1251:
1243:
1235:
1227:
1221:Impartiality
1208:
1200:
1192:
1186:Availability
1154:
1148:In re Oliver
1146:
1135:Public Trial
1112:
1104:
1096:
1088:
982:
964:
954:
945:
941:
931:
922:
913:
906:624 F.2d 196
902:Decoster III
901:
897:
888:
884:
862:
840:
836:
826:
817:
813:
791:
787:
776:
772:
764:
760:
751:
747:
724:. Retrieved
722:. p. 9B
719:
709:
700:
696:
686:
666:
648:
640:
625:
616:
612:
606:
602:
599:
593:
589:
586:
577:
568:
563:
552:
544:
540:
531:
528:
522:
520:
516:
512:Decoster III
508:
503:
497:
495:
488:
482:
463:
450:
439:
435:
432:
427:
425:
420:
415:overwhelming
414:
410:
408:
404:
397:
394:Case history
386:
385:
376:
359:
358:
357:
345:Laws applied
303:
291:
279:
267:
190:Case history
173:
155:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
1988:Appointment
1344:Facts found
272:Byron White
2382:Categories
754:: 229-232.
678:References
498:Strickland
428:inter alia
411:inter alia
382:Background
98:April 2012
68:newspapers
607:procedure
594:appointed
582:dissented
523:prejudice
219:11th Cir.
182:L. Ed. 2d
162:Citations
1066:case law
981:Text of
630:See also
440:DeCoster
365:landmark
340:Marshall
321:Majority
198:Writ of
726:May 23,
603:outcome
472:claim:
337:Dissent
332:Brennan
234:Holding
82:scholar
2360:(2008)
2352:(2000)
2344:(1987)
2336:(1984)
2328:(1975)
2315:Pro se
2306:(1977)
2298:(1963)
2279:(2019)
2271:(2017)
2263:(2012)
2255:(2011)
2247:(2010)
2239:(2010)
2231:(2009)
2223:(2009)
2215:(2009)
2207:(2008)
2199:(2004)
2191:(2003)
2183:(2002)
2175:(2002)
2167:(2001)
2159:(2000)
2151:(1993)
2143:(1986)
2135:(1986)
2127:(1984)
2106:(1942)
2087:(2002)
2079:(1994)
2071:(1987)
2063:(1979)
2055:(1973)
2047:(1972)
2039:(1967)
2031:(1963)
2023:(1961)
2015:(1942)
2007:(1938)
1999:(1932)
1980:(2006)
1969:Choice
1940:(1988)
1932:(1982)
1924:(1967)
1887:(1973)
1868:(1990)
1849:(2024)
1841:(2023)
1833:(2022)
1825:(2015)
1817:(2012)
1809:(2011)
1801:(2011)
1793:(2009)
1785:(2008)
1777:(2007)
1769:(2006)
1761:(2004)
1753:(1980)
1745:(1970)
1737:(1969)
1729:(1968)
1721:(1965)
1713:(1911)
1705:(1878)
1665:(1972)
1630:(2017)
1622:(2014)
1614:(1987)
1595:(2023)
1579:(1853)
1558:(2021)
1550:(2020)
1542:(1979)
1534:(1978)
1526:(1972)
1518:(1970)
1510:(1905)
1502:(1900)
1483:(2024)
1475:(2019)
1467:(2016)
1459:(2013)
1451:(2012)
1443:(2009)
1435:(2007)
1427:(2006)
1419:(2005)
1411:(2004)
1403:(2004)
1395:(2002)
1387:(2002)
1379:(2000)
1371:(1999)
1363:(1998)
1355:(1990)
1336:(2022)
1328:(2016)
1320:(2010)
1312:(1992)
1304:(1985)
1296:(1981)
1288:(1980)
1280:(1976)
1272:(1973)
1264:(1968)
1256:(1966)
1248:(1961)
1240:(1942)
1232:(1878)
1213:(1989)
1205:(1968)
1197:(1966)
1159:(2010)
1151:(1948)
1137:Clause
1117:(2016)
1109:(1992)
1101:(1972)
1093:(1967)
1028:
1025:Lawlio
1022:
1019:
1013:
1010:
1004:
1001:
998:Justia
995:
767:at 679
653:(2011)
645:(2003)
436:Knight
306:
304:·
302:
294:
292:·
290:
282:
280:·
278:
270:
268:·
266:
210:, 693
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
989:
797:, 906
782:, 890
658:Notes
225:
195:Prior
89:JSTOR
75:books
991:U.S.
891:(2).
843:(1).
820:(4).
728:2022
703:(3).
590:paid
496:The
438:and
227:U.S.
215:1243
212:F.2d
175:more
167:U.S.
165:466
61:news
987:466
946:134
904:,
223:462
184:674
170:668
44:by
2384::
985:,
963:.
944:.
940:.
921:.
889:34
887:.
883:.
871:^
861:.
849:^
841:69
839:.
835:.
818:95
816:.
802:^
752:14
750:.
736:^
718:.
701:42
699:.
695:.
1056:e
1049:t
1042:v
967:.
948:.
925:.
865:.
217:(
178:)
172:(
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
