Citation network
Mickens Vs. Taylor
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 27, 2002
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. 162 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Mickens V. TaylorSearch
-
that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
n. 26, may also arise when the defendant's attorney actively represented conflicting interests. In Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
codefendants over his timely objection, unless the trial court has determined that there is no conflict. In Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation, 446 U. S., at 348-349. Finally, in Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
him of the burden of showing that a conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. Relying on Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
that assistance which is ineffective in preserving fairness does not meet the constitutional mandate, see Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
see also Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
of the present case. To answer that question, we must examine those cases in some detail. 1 In Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
virtually made IJUSTICE BREYER rejects Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 475 (1978), Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
U. S. 335 (1980), and Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
triggered the trial court's duty to inquire. Id., at 346. Finally, in Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
CA4 2001) (en bane), with Tr. of Oral Arg. 23-25. Some Courts of Appeals have read a footnote in Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
mandated when the trial court neglects a duty to inquire into a potential conflict of interest. See, e. g., Campbell v. RiceSearch
-
Ciak v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 59 F.3d 296 , 302 (CA2 1995). But see Brien v. UnitedSearch
-
elsewhere to mean what was required to be shown in Sullivan. See United States v. CronicSearch
-
e have presumed prejudice when counsel labors under an actual conflict of interest .... See Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
affected counsel's performance. In Holloway, 435 U. S., at 482, we described our earlier opinion in Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
s performance was significantly affected nor in any other way renders the verdict unreliable. Cf. United States v. CronicSearch
-
as careless or as partial as those police officers who need the incentive of the exclusionary rule, see United States v. LeonSearch
-
Beets v. ScottSearch
-
only when (as here) there is a conflict rooted in counsel's obligations to former clients, see, e. g., Perillo v. JohnsonSearch
-
Freund v. ButterworthSearch
-
Mannhalt v. ReedSearch
-
United States v. YoungSearch
-
of the defendant somehow implicates counsel's personal or financial interests, including a book deal, United States v. HearstSearch
-
F.2d 1190 , 1193 (CA9 1980), a job with the prosecutor's office, Garcia v. BunnellSearch
-
n. 4 (CA9 1994), the teaching of classes to Internal Revenue Service agents, United States v. MichaudSearch
-
with the prosecutor, Summerlin v. StewartSearch
-
F. 3d 926, 935-941 (CA9 2001), or fear of antagonizing the 175 trial judge, United States v. SayanSearch
-
itself is evidently inadequate to assure vindication of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Nix v. WhitesideSearch
-
counsel's brief representation of the victim had no effect whatsoever on the course of petitioner's trial. See Mickens v. GreeneSearch
-
Court's factual findings unless we can conclude they are clearly erroneous. See Lackawanna County District Attorney v. CossSearch
-
Amendment protects the defendant against an ineffective attorney, as well as a conflicted one. See Strick land v. WashingtonSearch
-
This protection is applicable to state, as well as federal, criminal proceedings. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
We have long recognized the paramount importance of the right to effective assistance of counsel. United States v. CronicSearch
-
was an absolute prerequisite to Mickens' eligibility for the death penalty.3 Of course, since that 2 Williams v. ReedSearch
-
Williams v. ReedSearch
-
Because a lawyer's fiduciary relationship with his deceased client survives the client's death, Swidler & Berlin v. UnitedSearch
-
the code of ethics, is a violation of the Constitution. 184 of self-representation recognized in Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Syllabus Mickens V. TaylorSearch
-
Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial