92 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,426 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"
Illinois v. Wardlow
528 U.S. 119 (2000) Cited 5,069 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991))
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,196 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Gray v. Netherland
518 U.S. 152 (1996) Cited 4,060 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that procedural default is not implicated for an unexhausted claim until it is established that further resort to state law would be futile, and it is clear that state law would procedurally bar the claims
Kimmelman v. Morrison
477 U.S. 365 (1986) Cited 5,796 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
Navarette v. California
572 U.S. 393 (2014) Cited 1,397 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a motorist's 911 emergency call provided reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime
Florida v. J. L.
529 U.S. 266 (2000) Cited 2,228 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding an anonymous tip that a young black man in a plaid shirt was carrying a gun insufficient to create reasonable suspicion
People v. Stultz
2 N.Y.3d 277 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,227 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 4,211 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."
United States v. Mechanik
475 U.S. 66 (1986) Cited 1,263 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the petit jury's verdict rendered harmless any [Rule 6(d)] error in the [grand jury's] charging decision"

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

92 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 "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991))

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that procedural default is not implicated for an unexhausted claim until it is established that further resort to state law would be futile, and it is clear that state law would procedurally bar the claims

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 motorist's 911 emergency call provided reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime

Holding an anonymous tip that a young black man in a plaid shirt was carrying a gun insufficient to create reasonable suspicion

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 that "the petit jury's verdict rendered harmless any [Rule 6(d)] error in the [grand jury's] charging decision"