Citation network
Kimmelman Vs. Morrison
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1986
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. 365 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 365 (1986) Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
inter alia, that he had established his ineffective assistance claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Court's determination of ineffective assistance under the test established by the intervening decision in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
The restriction on federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims announced in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
many state court judgments will be disturbed, is incorrect, because it ignores the rigorous standard which Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
in this case is whether the restrictions on federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims announced in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Amendment claim fully and fairly, direct consideration of this claim on federal habeas review was barred by Stone v. PowellSearch
-
this Court announced the standards to be applied to claims of constitutionally deficient representation in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 668 (1984), the District Court relied on Third Circuit precedent for guidance, particularly United States v. BaynesSearch
-
F.2d 659 (1982), and Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
the complainant's legitimate expectation of privacy has been violated by an illegal search or seizure. See, e.g., Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
illegal and that it violated his reasonable expectation of privacy in the item or place at issue. See, e.g., Rawlings v. KentuckySearch
-
it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process. E.g., Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect. See, e.g., Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting United States v. CalandraSearch
-
impeachment of a defendant who testifies broadly in his own behalf, 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 488 (citing Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
in the context of federal collateral proceedings. Ibid. See also Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 68 -69 (1932), for it is through counsel that the accused secures his other rights. Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
U. S. 685 . In other words, the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel. Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
will ordinarily be unable to recognize counsel's errors and to evaluate counsel's professional performance, cf. Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Sixth Amendment mandates that the State bear the risk of constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel. See Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
Evitts, 469 U.S. at 469 U. S. 394 , quoting Herring v. NewSearch
-
U.S. at 466 U. S. 685 (quoting Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
to effective assistance of counsel is not confined to trial, but extends also to the first appeal as of right. Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
Moreover, the restriction on federal habeas relief established by Stone v. PowellSearch
-
As we observed in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
absent or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. CronicSearch
-
Amendment claim, he also loses the opportunity to obtain direct review under the harmless error standard of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Smith v. MurraySearch
-
POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring in the judgment. I agree that Stone v. PowellSearch
-
of counsel claim on federal habeas corpus. That conclusion flows logically from Stone and from Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
discussed by the various courts involved in this case. Consequently, the proper course is to reject petitioners' Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Fourth Amendment, the claim cannot be heard by a federal court on habeas corpus. Petitioners' argument rests on Stone v. PowellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial