Citation network
Cuyler Vs. Sullivan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 12, 1980
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 335 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
U.S. 335 (1980) Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
motions failed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed his conviction by an equally divided vote. Commonwealth v. SullivanSearch
-
Supreme Court affirmed both Sullivan's original conviction and the denial of collateral relief. Commonwealth v. SullivanSearch
-
App to Pet. for Cert. 5C-8C. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. United States ex rel. Sullivan v. CuylerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 519, quoting Walker v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 374, 375 (CA3) (per curiam), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915 (1970). See also United States ex rel. Hart v. DavenportSearch
-
U. S. 341 We granted certiorari, 444 U.S. 823 (1979), to consider recurring issues left unresolved by Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
In Townsend v. SainSearch
-
U.S. at 372 U. S. 309 , n. 6, quoting Brown v. AllenSearch
-
of law and fact that requires the application of legal principles to the historical facts of this case. Cf. Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is a fundamental right. Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
conducted by the State itself, is an action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Lisenba v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 86 , 261 U. S. 90 -91 (1923). The Court recognized as much in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
through such a trial, it is the State that unconstitutionally deprives the defendant of his liberty. See Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
a lawyer's tactical decision to put the defendant on the stand unconstitutionally abridge the right to counsel. Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
U. S. 570 , 365 U. S. 593 -596 (1961) (prohibiting direct examination of defendant). See also Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
Herring v. NewSearch
-
Amendment because his lawyers had a conflict of interest. The claim raises two issues expressly reserved in Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
U.S. at 435 U. S. 485 , quoting State v. DavisSearch
-
Id. at 435 U. S. 482 -483, quoting Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
In Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
at 75. Since this actual conflict of interest impaired Glasser's defense, the Court reversed his conviction. Dukes v. WardenSearch
-
Id. at 406 U. S. 256 , quoting Dukes v. WardenSearch
-
of their fee, but no part of the money came from either Sullivan or his family. See United States ex rel. Sullivan v. CuylerSearch
-
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied two petitions for reargument. See Commonwealth v. SullivanSearch
-
federal habeas corpus relief were dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. See United States ex rel. Sullivan v. CuylerSearch
-
d). Compare Velleca v. SuperintendentSearch
-
F.2d 1040, 1041-1042 (CA1 1975) (per curiam), with Hill v. NelsonSearch
-
of the question on which we granted certiorari, see Vance v. TerrazasSearch
-
U. S. 252 , 444 U. S. 258 -259, n. 5 (1980), we must address it. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
Fitzgerald v. EstelleSearch
-
As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said, in United States ex rel. Hart v. DavenportSearch
-
Several Courts of Appeals already invoke their supervisory power to require similar inquiries. See United States v. WaldmanSearch
-
United States v. DeBerrySearch
-
United States v. LawriwSearch
-
Ford v. UnitedSearch
-
said explicitly that the Sixth Amendment does not require an inquiry into the possibility of conflicts, United States v. SteeleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial