84 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,509 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"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,527 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,249 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
Lockhart v. Fretwell
506 U.S. 364 (1993) Cited 6,842 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement
Wong Sun v. United States
371 U.S. 471 (1963) Cited 12,223 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree
People v. Stultz
2 N.Y.3d 277 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,228 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "a defendant's showing of prejudice [to be] a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation," focusing instead on "the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,227 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 5,973 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.
Mayo v. Henderson
13 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 1,332 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an ineffectiveness-of-appellate-counsel claim is only valid if the appellate error prejudiced the defendant
People v. Turner
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8766 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 522 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 203,995 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

The People, Respondent,v.Franklin McPherson, Appellant.

84 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 courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

Holding petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement

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

Holding "a defendant's showing of prejudice [to be] a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation," focusing instead on "the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"

Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

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

Holding that an ineffectiveness-of-appellate-counsel claim is only valid if the appellate error prejudiced the defendant

Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"