51 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,880 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"
Smith v. Robbins
528 U.S. 259 (2000) Cited 8,555 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,311 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,244 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
528 U.S. 470 (2000) Cited 5,728 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,434 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Jones v. Barnes
463 U.S. 745 (1983) Cited 11,155 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
Atkins v. Virginia
536 U.S. 304 (2002) Cited 3,124 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants
Colorado v. Connelly
479 U.S. 157 (1986) Cited 4,825 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the validity of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence
Oregon v. Elstad
470 U.S. 298 (1985) Cited 2,921 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that Fifth Amendment Miranda violations do not require that fruits of otherwise voluntary statements be suppressed as tainted

MANRIQUEZ

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

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"

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

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

Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the validity of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence

Holding that Fifth Amendment Miranda violations do not require that fruits of otherwise voluntary statements be suppressed as tainted