The Kelley Institute
Law of Lawyering
Supreme Court Review
Cases tagged as: right to counsel
Burt v. Titlow
The Court held that the Sixth Circuit failed to apply the correct standard ("doubly deferential" standard) of review when it did not credit the state district court's reasonable factual findings when the Circuit assumed ineffective assistance of counsel where the record was silent.
Christeson v. Roper
135 S. Ct. 891 (2015) (PDF)
When a death row inmate’s appointed attorneys had missed the filing deadline for his first federal habeas petition and could not be expected to argue that the inmate was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for the appointment of substitute, conflict-free counsel.
Davis v. Ayala
135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (PDF)
Exclusion of Defendant’s attorney from part of an ex parte Batson hearing was harmless error. There was no basis for finding that the Defendant suffered actual prejudice.
Hinton v. Alabama
134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014) (PDF)
Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was supported when defense counsel in a capital murder trial failed to seek additional funds to replace an inadequate expert when that failure was based not on any strategic decision, but rather on a mistaken belief that available funding was capped at $1,000. The Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the case for reconsideration of whether the attorney's deficient performance was prejudicial.
Jennings v. Stephens
135 S. Ct. 793 (2014) (PDF)
A prisoner who sought federal habeas relief based on three theories of ineffective assistance of counsel and prevailed in the district court on two of them is not required to file a cross-appeal in order to urge an alternative ground for relief or seek a certificate of appealability on the third theory.
Kaley v. U.S.
134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014) (PDF)
Defendants were not entitled to challenge grand jury’s probably cause determination, even when they claimed that protective order restraining their assets interfered with their ability to retain criminal defense counsel of their choice.
Luis v. U.S.
Docket No. 14-419 (PDF)
Issues: Whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Marshall v. Rodgers
133 S. Ct. 1446 (2013) (PDF)
Supreme Court held that petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated when state court failed to appoint an attorney to help him file a motion for new trial, given that petitioner had waived his right to an attorney on three previous occasions. The Ninth Circuit’s holding that respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated was not supported by clearly established federal law
Ryan v. Gonzalez
133 S. Ct. 696 (2013) (PDF)
Alongside Tibbals v. Carter, the Court held that neither 18 U.S.C Section 3599 nor 18 U.S.C Section 4241 provides a right to suspend the prisoner's federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Salinas v. Texas
The Court held 5-4 that a prosecutor was not barred by the Fifth Amendment to mention in trial,as evidence of possible guilt, a defendant's silence and refusal to answer police questions before the defendant was placed into custody or read his Miranda Rights. The Court ruled that the defendant must expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to officers' questions.
Trevino v. Thaler
133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (PDF)
The good cause exception recognized in Martinez v. Martin will apply when a state’s procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it unlikely that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise on direct appeal a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Turner v. Rogers
131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (PDF)
The Court held that indigent, noncustodial parents subject to a child support order are not constitutionally entitled to counsel at a civil contempt proceeding, even if the parent faces jail time.
Woods v. Donald
135 S. Ct. 1372 (2015) (PDF)
Supreme Court held that attorney’s brief absence during testimony concerning other defendants was no per se ineffective assistance of counsel under United States v. Cronic.