116 Cited authorities

Kimmelman v. Morrison
477 U.S. 365 (1986) Cited 5,941 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if trial counsel's failure to litigate a constitutional claim competently "is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness," petitioner must also prove that the underlying constitutional claim is meritorious
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006) Cited 2,158 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice
Cuyler v. Sullivan
446 U.S. 335 (1980) Cited 5,780 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that prejudice is presumed when a defendant establishes his attorney operated under an actual conflict of interest arising from concurrent representation of multiple clients which adversely affected the attorney's performance
Mickens v. Taylor
535 U.S. 162 (2002) Cited 1,892 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that he denial of habeas relief must be affirmed where petitioner fails "to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance"
People v. Benevento
91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 4,272 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."
Wood v. Georgia
450 U.S. 261 (1981) Cited 1,239 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding the trial court violated its duty to inquire into the conflict created by the fact that the defendant's lawyer was hired and paid by a third party
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 6,033 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. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,746 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"
Geders v. United States
425 U.S. 80 (1976) Cited 955 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial court's order prohibiting defendant from consulting with his attorney during an overnight trial recess violated the Sixth Amendment
People v. Rivera
71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 1,852 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.Paul Cortez, Appellant.

116 Cited authorities

Holding that, if trial counsel's failure to litigate a constitutional claim competently "is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness," petitioner must also prove that the underlying constitutional claim is meritorious

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

Holding that prejudice is presumed when a defendant establishes his attorney operated under an actual conflict of interest arising from concurrent representation of multiple clients which adversely affected the attorney's performance

Holding that he denial of habeas relief must be affirmed where petitioner fails "to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance"

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 the trial court violated its duty to inquire into the conflict created by the fact that the defendant's lawyer was hired and paid by a third party

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 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 that trial court's order prohibiting defendant from consulting with his attorney during an overnight trial recess violated the Sixth Amendment

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