466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,447 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"
501 U.S. 722 (1991) Cited 26,190 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"
523 U.S. 614 (1998) Cited 13,570 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule announced in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472, which narrowed the scope of the term "use" in § 924(c), applied retroactively
538 U.S. 500 (2003) Cited 5,840 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal does not bar a defendant from bringing the claim in a later, appropriate collateral proceeding
477 U.S. 365 (1986) Cited 5,797 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
512 U.S. 339 (1994) Cited 1,955 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in a § 2254 proceeding, a state court's failure to observe speedy trial requirements was not cognizable when the failure did not prejudice the defendant
368 U.S. 424 (1962) Cited 4,992 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court's failure to notify a defendant of his right to speak at his sentencing did not prejudice him and was not a cognizable claim under § 2255
Holding that the ineffectiveness prong of Strickland is a high bar, requiring a showing that “no competent counsel would have taken [the action in question]”