58 Cited authorities

Smith v. Robbins
528 U.S. 259 (2000) Cited 8,539 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"
United States v. Cronic
466 U.S. 648 (1984) Cited 7,357 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"
Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (1972) Cited 11,582 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006) Cited 2,092 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice
Edwards v. Arizona
451 U.S. 477 (1981) Cited 6,423 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel
Evitts v. Lucey
469 U.S. 387 (1985) Cited 4,484 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel
Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938) Cited 8,796 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
Griffin v. Illinois
351 U.S. 12 (1956) Cited 3,152 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that preventing an indigent defendant from appealing his conviction due to his failure to pay for a trial transcript is unconstitutional
Halbert v. Michigan
545 U.S. 605 (2005) Cited 487 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking first-tier review of guilty or nolo contendere pleas in the intermediate state court of appeals, whose function is to review and "correct errors made by the lower courts," even though such review is discretionary under state law
Degen v. United States
517 U.S. 820 (1996) Cited 618 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the doctrine cannot be used to enter summary judgment in favor of the government in a civil forfeiture case
Section 3006A - Adequate representation of defendants
18 U.S.C. § 3006A Cited 17,654 times 13 Legal Analyses
Granting defendants an ex parte forum to request reimbursement for supplemental services

The People, Respondent,v.Ivan Calaff, Appellant.

58 Cited authorities

Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"

Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right

Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice

Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel

Holding that the right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel

Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

Holding that preventing an indigent defendant from appealing his conviction due to his failure to pay for a trial transcript is unconstitutional

Holding that the doctrine cannot be used to enter summary judgment in favor of the government in a civil forfeiture case

Granting defendants an ex parte forum to request reimbursement for supplemental services