60 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,859 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"
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,174 times 73 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
Jones v. Barnes
463 U.S. 745 (1983) Cited 11,154 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985) Cited 9,434 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant
Kimmelman v. Morrison
477 U.S. 365 (1986) Cited 5,811 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
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,091 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,072 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated
Hinton v. Alabama
571 U.S. 263 (2014) Cited 843 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing apparently to understand relevant law relating to expert testimony at trial
Waller v. Georgia
467 U.S. 39 (1984) Cited 2,091 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's public trial right was violated even though the district court released a transcript of the closed proceedings to the public
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."

The People, Respondent,v.Rashid Bilal, Appellant.

60 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 a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

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 the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

Holding that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing apparently to understand relevant law relating to expert testimony at trial

Holding that a defendant's public trial right was violated even though the district court released a transcript of the closed proceedings to the public

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."