30 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,880 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Whren v. United States
517 U.S. 806 (1996) Cited 8,618 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"
Wong Sun v. United States
371 U.S. 471 (1963) Cited 12,246 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree
Delaware v. Prouse
440 U.S. 648 (1979) Cited 5,115 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a special need "precludes insistence upon ‘some quantum of individualized suspicion,’ other safeguards are generally relied upon to assure that the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not ‘subject to the discretion of the official in the field’ " (quoting Camara , 387 U.S. at 532, 87 S.Ct. 1727 (footnote omitted))
McMann v. Richardson
397 U.S. 759 (1970) Cited 7,413 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that even a possible misjudgment about admissibility of evidence is not ineffective assistance.
Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643 (1961) Cited 8,298 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"
People v. Benevento
91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 4,215 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 5,976 times 6 Legal Analyses
In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
People v. Caban
5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 1,639 times
Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth
People v. Rivera
71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 1,832 times
Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel

The People, Respondent,v.Anthony Parson, Jr., Appellant.

30 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"

Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree

Holding that even a possible misjudgment about admissibility of evidence is not ineffective assistance.

Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"

In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."

In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel