Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
37 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Momon v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Trial counsel testified that during the Momon hearing at the trial, the Petitioner said he wanted to testify despite having had “many, many discussions [with her] where [the Petitioner] was adamant that he did not want to testify.” See Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). 2025Trial counsel testified that during the Momon hearing at the trial, the Petitioner said he wanted to testify despite having had “many, many discussions [with her] where [the Petitioner] was adamant that he did not want to testify.” See Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). | 17 | 28 |
Brandon Mobley v. State of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2025Mobley, 397 S.W.3d at 104 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106 (g)) (holding that the petitioner waived his Momon claim by not presenting it to the trial court or on direct appeal); Edwards v. State, No. E2023-00410-CCA-R3-PC, 2024 WL 3311438 , at *11 -8- (Tenn. Crim. 2024See Mobley, 397 S.W.3d at 104 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30 - 106(g)) (holding that the petitioner waived his Momon claim by not presenting it to the trial court or on direct appeal). | 3 | 4 |
Blackledge v. Allisongreen2 sentences2026Trial counsel asked the petitioner whether they had “talked about the pros and cons of [testifying and not testifying],” and the petitioner answered, “That’s right.” It is well-settled that a petitioner’s “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). 2026Trial counsel asked the petitioner whether they had “talked about the pros and cons of [testifying and not testifying],” and the petitioner answered, “That’s right.” It is well-settled that a petitioner’s “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Poseygreen2 sentences2011In keeping with the reasonable probability standard, it is still helpful to consider the factors applicable when determining whether the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on direct appeal. -10- On direct appeal, when faced with a Momon violation, reviewing courts should consider “(1) the importance of the defendant’s testimony to the defense case; (2) the cumulative nature of the testimony; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the defendant on material points; [and] (4) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Id. at 168; accord State v. 2011In keeping with the reasonable probability standard, it is still helpful to consider the factors applicable when determining whether the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on direct appeal. -10- On direct appeal, when faced with a Momon violation, reviewing courts should consider “(1) the importance of the defendant’s testimony to the defense case; (2) the cumulative nature of the testimony; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the defendant on material points; [and] (4) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Id. at 168; accord State v. | 1 | 2 |
French v. Stategreen2 sentences2018“A post-conviction petition is not a vehicle to review errors of law as a substitute for direct appeal.” French v. State, 824 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tenn. 1992); see T.C.A. § 40-30-106(g) (“A ground for relief is waived if the petitioner personally or through an attorney failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented . . .”); Mario Deangelo Thomas v. State, No. W2004-01704-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 1669898 , at *2 (Tenn. Crim. 2018“A post-conviction petition is not a vehicle to review errors of law as a substitute for direct appeal.” French v. State, 824 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tenn. 1992); see T.C.A. § 40-30-106(g) (“A ground for relief is waived if the petitioner personally or through an attorney failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented . . .”); Mario Deangelo Thomas v. State, No. W2004-01704-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 1669898 , at *2 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2016See Miqwon Deon Leach, 2005 WL 1651654 , at *8 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ). 2016See Miqwon Deon Leach, 2005 WL 1651654 , at *8 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rimmergreen2 sentences2013State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12, 28 (Tenn.2008). 15 . 2013State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12, 28 (Tenn.2008). 15 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2005Next, the petitioner challenges the effectiveness of his counsel based on counsel’s failure to attempt to terminate proceedings when the trial court failed to conduct the trial within the 180-day period specified in the Interstate Compact on Detainers.1 This section of the compact or agreement2 contains the “anti-shuttling provisions.” See State v. Brown, 53 S.W.3d 264, 284 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2005We note that our adjudication on the proportionality of the death sentence is not predicated upon the insufficiency of the evidence of the aggravating factor, cf. Christopher Scott Beckham, slip op. at 28 & n.6 (upon adjudicating insufficiency of evidence to support the aggravating factor, remanding for imposition of life sentence, the sanction of life without the possibility of parole being inapplicable based upon the date of the offense), and we commend to the trial court State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 323, 331 (Tenn. 1996) (authorizing state on remand to seek to establish new aggravating facto | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences2024On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) police contamination of the condom that yielded the defendant’s DNA profile resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial under State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (2) the trial court erred in not requiring chain of custody after the police mispackaged the condom in a way that degrades DNA; (3) the identification of the defendant’s voice based on his testimony at the Momon hearing resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial; (4) the prosecution commented on the defendant’s silence by arguing the defendant’s rights prevented a non-suggestive voice ide 2024On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) police contamination of the condom that yielded the defendant’s DNA profile resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial under State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (2) the trial court erred in not requiring chain of custody after the police mispackaged the condom in a way that degrades DNA; (3) the identification of the defendant’s voice based on his testimony at the Momon hearing resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial; (4) the prosecution commented on the defendant’s silence by arguing the defendant’s rights prevented a non-suggestive voice ide | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2022App., at Nashville, Jan. 7, 2002), aff’d, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). 9 See Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2000). - 28 - On cross-examination, lead counsel testified that the Public Defender’s file contained copies of letters that Petitioner had sent to his mother, which included instructions to call certain people along with phone numbers and directions on how to access messages on an answering machine. 2022App., at Nashville, Jan. 7, 2002), aff’d, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003). 9 See Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2000). - 28 - On cross-examination, lead counsel testified that the Public Defender’s file contained copies of letters that Petitioner had sent to his mother, which included instructions to call certain people along with phone numbers and directions on how to access messages on an answering machine. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. Mauro
green
2 sentences2005Relying on United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 , 98 S. Ct. 1834 , 56 L. 2005Relying on United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 , 98 S. Ct. 1834 , 56 L. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.