Citation network
Jones Vs. Barnes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 05, 1983
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. 745 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
U.S. 745 (1983) Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
assistance. The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that, under Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
raised in the pro se briefs. On May 22, 1978, the Appellate Division affirmed by summary order, New York v. BarnesSearch
-
App.Div.2d 865, 405 N.Y.S.2d 621 (1978). The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, New York v. BarnesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The District Court held the claims to be without merit and dismissed the petition. United States ex rel. Barnes v. JonesSearch
-
had provided ineffective assistance. The New York Court of Appeals denied the application on April 16, 1980, New York v. BarnesSearch
-
Id. at 433 (emphasis added). In the view of the majority, this conclusion followed from Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Page 463 U. S. 751 the Court of Appeals relied primarily upon Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra. There is, of course, no constitutional right to an appeal, but in Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 12 , 351 U. S. 18 (1956), and Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal, see Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
addition, we have held that, with some limitations, a defendant may elect to act as his or her own advocate, Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
for a petitioner's default within the meaning of Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
U. S. 72 (1977). See also Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
to succeed, should acquiesce in the client's choice of which nonfrivolous claims to pursue. Certainly, Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 738 (1967), and Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
client's express wishes, cannot forever foreclose review of nonfrivolous constitutional claims. As I noted in Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
citing Brookhart v. JanisSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1966), and Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
for any resulting procedural default under state law. See Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
counsel themselves, but also on its Due Process Clause and its incorporation of Sixth Amendment standards. See Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 458 , 304 U. S. 462 -463 (1938). The two theories converge in this case also. Cf. Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of counsel at all stages of the criminal process at which his substantial rights may be affected. Argersiner v. HamlinSearch
-
or that the representation afforded must meet minimum standards of effectiveness. See Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
the Constitution, counsel must function as an advocate for the defendant, as opposed to a friend of the court. Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
protected was the State's interest in substantial justice, it would not include such a right. However, in Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
his choice must be honored out of 'that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.' Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
for him, although counsel may be better able to decide which tactics will be most effective for the defendant. Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Absent exceptional circumstances, he is bound by the tactics used by his counsel at trial and on appeal. Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
the State's, not his own. As a practical matter, the assistance of counsel is necessary to that defense. See Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
of the client's autonomy and dignity in all phases of the criminal process. As Justice Black wrote in Von Moltke v. GilliesSearch
-
by the Constitution contemplates the services of an attorney devoted solely to the interests of his client. Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
lightly that, in a particular case, a defendant has disregarded his lawyer's obviously sound advice. Cf. Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 751 . That statement, besides being unnecessary to its decision, is quite arguably wrong. In Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
case, I have little doubt that the passage of nearly 30 years since Griffin and some 90 years since McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
Of course, a State may also allow properly supervised law students to represent indigent defendants. See Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
New York v. BarnesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial