benchmark for judging any claim (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

benchmark for judging any claim in New Jersey

5 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2008 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Strickland v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 5 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1989–2008
2 sentences

2008The "prejudice" requirement of the second aspect of this test "was based on our conclusion that `[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the' error had no effect on the judgment.'" Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 209 (1985) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 696 ). *606 "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial proce

2008The "prejudice" requirement of the second aspect of this test "was based on our conclusion that `[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the' error had no effect on the judgment.'" Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 209 (1985) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 696 ). *606 "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial proce

15
State v. Fritzgreen
nj · 1987 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1998–2008
2 sentences

2008In holding that a PCR applicant must demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different," the Court defined "reasonablele probability" as "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 698 ; see also State v. Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 52 , 519 A. 2d 336 .

2008In holding that a PCR applicant must demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different," the Court defined "reasonablele probability" as "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 698 ; see also State v. Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 52 , 519 A. 2d 336 .

12
Hill v. Lockhartgreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008The "prejudice" requirement of the second aspect of this test "was based on our conclusion that `[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the' error had no effect on the judgment.'" Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 209 (1985) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 696 ). *606 "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial proce

2008The "prejudice" requirement of the second aspect of this test "was based on our conclusion that `[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the' error had no effect on the judgment.'" Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 209 (1985) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 696 ). *606 "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial proce

11
United States v. Cronicgreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998The Strickland Court set forth a two-prong test to determine whether “counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a [defendant’s] conviction.” Id. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 693 ; see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 , 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2046 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657, 667 (1984) (“Absent some effect of challenged conduct on the reliability of the trial process, the Sixth Amendment guarantee is generally not implicated.”); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 , 519 A.2d 336 (1987).

1998The Strickland Court set forth a two-prong test to determine whether “counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a [defendant’s] conviction.” Id. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 693 ; see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 , 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2046 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657, 667 (1984) (“Absent some effect of challenged conduct on the reliability of the trial process, the Sixth Amendment guarantee is generally not implicated.”); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 , 519 A.2d 336 (1987).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

1991"The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 674, 692-93 , reh'g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 864 (1984).

1991“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 692-93 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984).

21989–1991

Where else courts name it

MS 191 (1990–2025) OH 119 (1986–2025) TX 84 (1986–2025) WY 56 (1986–2024) TN 49 (1994–2021) IN 46 (1984–2025) IL 44 (1984–2026) IA 26 (1985–2026) MO 20 (1985–2023) CA 18 (1992–2021) PA 15 (1995–2020) CT 13 (1985–2022) MD 13 (1985–2026) UT 12 (1993–2019) GA 11 (1986–2015) DC 11 (1984–2012) WI 11 (1985–2025) KS 11 (1985–2024) DE 8 (2019–2026) FL 8 (1990–2018) VA 8 (1986–2004) ID 8 (1985–2010) WA 7 (1984–2023) SD 7 (1987–2018) RI 7 (1993–2011) OK 7 (1986–2009) AR 6 (2003–2021) LA 6 (1993–2024) MN 5 (1985–2019) NJ 5 (1989–2008) CO 5 (2003–2015) NM 4 (1985–2009) AL 4 (1985–1992) MI 4 (2022–2025) NC 4 (1985–2018) NE 3 (1986–2023) KY 3 (2008–2022) OR 3 (2005–2022) AZ 2 (1984–1986)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check