Citation network
Holloway Vs. Arkansas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 03, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 475 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
U.S. 475 (1978) Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
interests is brought home to the court by formal objections, motions, and counsel's representations. Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
and prejudice is presumed regardless Page 435 U. S. 476 of whether it was independently shown. Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
Before trial, the same judge who later presided at petitioners' trial conducted a Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
of interests or prejudice to the petitioners, and therefore affirmed. II More than 35 years ago, in Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendants were deprived of their right to the effective assistance of counsel. Compare United States ex rel. Hart v. DavenportSearch
-
Lollar v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. ChaconSearch
-
and State v. KennedySearch
-
Wash.App. 633, 508 P.2d 1386 (1973), with United States v. LovanoSearch
-
right to the effective assistance of counsel by joint representation of conflicting interests. Compare United States v. LawriwSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. CarriganSearch
-
and United States v. FosterSearch
-
F.2d 1 (CA1 1972), with Foxworth v. WainwrightSearch
-
F.2d 1072 (CA5 1975), and United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
representations as an officer of the court regarding a conflict of interests, should be granted. See, e.g., Shuttle v. SmithSearch
-
State v. DavisSearch
-
State v. BrazileSearch
-
Commonwealth v. LaFleurSearch
-
trial court's ability to Page 435 U. S. 487 deal with counsel who resort to such tactics. Cf. United States v. DardiSearch
-
People v. KroegerSearch
-
See State v. DavisSearch
-
to the complaining codefendant, whenever a trial court improperly permits or requires joint representation. See Austin v. EricksonSearch
-
United States v. GougisSearch
-
Hall v. StateSearch
-
Whitling v. RussellSearch
-
but rather should affirm unless the defendant can demonstrate prejudice. See United States Page 435 U. S. 488 v. WoodsSearch
-
s evidence against the defendant is, of course, one step in applying a harmless error standard. See Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial. Cf. Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
the cases cited, it is clear that the prejudice is presumed regardless of whether it was independently shown. Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
see Brief for Petitioner Kretske in Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
or during a critical stage in, at least, the prosecution of a capital offense, reversal is automatic. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
White v. MarylandSearch
-
task of assessing the likelihood that the error materially affected the deliberations of the jury. Compare Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra at 386 U. S. 24 -26, with Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 418 U. S. 87 , 418 U. S. 108 (1974), and United States v. Valle-ValdezSearch
-
See Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
dissent. I It is useful to contrast today's decision with the Court's most relevant previous ruling, Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
of the need for a prophylactic gloss on the requirements of the Constitution in this area of criminal law. Cf. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
Hart v. DavenportSearch
-
United States v. LovanoSearch
-
Compare United States v. LawriwSearch
-
Foxworth v. WainwrightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial