48 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,786 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"
Murray v. Carrier
477 U.S. 478 (1986) Cited 16,453 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel may provide cause for a procedural default
United States v. Cronic
466 U.S. 648 (1984) Cited 7,368 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"
People v. Stultz
2 N.Y.3d 277 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,233 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. 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. 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. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,688 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"
People v. Rivera
71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 1,831 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
Eze v. Senkowski
321 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 615 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA's deferential standard of review applied even where the State failed to argue for its application
People v. Turner
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8766 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 523 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal

The People, Appellant,v.Kharye Jarvis, Respondent.

48 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 constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel may provide cause for a procedural default

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 "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"

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."

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

Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

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

Holding that AEDPA's deferential standard of review applied even where the State failed to argue for its application

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