Citation network
Smith Vs. Murray
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. 527 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. MurraySearch
-
U.S. 527 (1986) Smith v. MurraySearch
-
of the psychiatrist's testimony by failing to press it before the Supreme Court of Virginia on direct appeal. Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
an error of such magnitude that it rendered his performance constitutionally deficient under the test of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
that any error in the admission of the psychiatrist's evidence in this case was irrelevant under the holding of Zant v. StephensSearch
-
law, Mr. Pugh had advised petitioner not to discuss any prior criminal episodes with anyone. App. 134. See Gibson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
or that he had the right to remain silent and to have counsel present if he so desired. Id. at 90. Cf. Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of Virginia Law School. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction and sentence in all respects. Smith v. CommonwealthSearch
-
to the admission of Dr. Pile's testimony had been defaulted. The Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal, Smith v. MorrisSearch
-
under this Court's decision in Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Ibid. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds. Smith v. ProcunierSearch
-
Tr. 1102. In that circumstance, the Court of Appeals believed, our decision in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
any, was irrelevant to the overall validity of the sentence. Page 477 U. S. 533 We granted certiorari, Smith v. SielaffSearch
-
U.S. 918 (1985), and now affirm on the authority of our decision in Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
criminal conviction ordinarily bars consideration of that claim in any subsequent state proceeding. See, e.g., Coppola v. WardenSearch
-
Slayton v. ParriganSearch
-
not included in his initial appeal from his conviction and sentence. Consistent with our earlier intimations in Reed v. RossSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 468 U. S. 11 (1984), we held in Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
S. 534 the past to essay a comprehensive catalog of the circumstances that would justify a finding of cause. Reed v. RossSearch
-
Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
of hindsight, petitioner's counsel in this Court now contends that this perception proved to be incorrect. Cf. Gibson v. ZahradnickSearch
-
F.2d 75 (CA4 1978) (repudiating reasoning of Gibson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Ante at 477 U. S. 486 -487. See also Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
error of such magnitude that it rendered counsel's performance constitutionally deficient under the test of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
United States v. CronicSearch
-
likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy. Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
underestimate the likelihood that a federal habeas court will repudiate an established state rule. But, as Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
for noncompliance with Virginia's rules. See Reed v. RossSearch
-
Petitioner contends that this Court's decisions in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 454 (1981), and Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
ante at 477 U. S. 495 , quoting Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
his trial and appeal. Post at 477 U. S. 546 . We reject the suggestion that the principles of Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
for the default. Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
sentence. This analysis is far removed from the traditional understanding of habeas corpus. For instance, in Moore v. DempseySearch
-
alluded to in Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
Smith v. ProcunierSearch
-
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER's opinion for the Court in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
to recall the importance of the Fifth Amendment right at issue. Again, THE CHIEF JUSTICE's opinion in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
The Fifth Amendment privilege is 'as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard,' Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will and to suffer no penalty . . . for such silence.' Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
In this respect, I disagree with the Court of Appeals' reading of the opinion that I authored for the Court in Zant v. StephensSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial