Sixth Amendment violation in Nebraska

18 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Cronicgreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 4 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1986–2013 2 sentences 2003Ed. 2d 657 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable.” The Court also noted: The Court has uniformly found constitutional error without any showing of prejudice when counsel was either totally absent, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding. [Citations omitted.] Apart from circumstances of that magnitude, however, there is generally 2003Ed. 2d 657 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable.” The Court also noted: The Court has uniformly found constitutional error without any showing of prejudice when counsel was either totally absent, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding. [Citations omitted.] Apart from circumstances of that magnitude, however, there is generally	2	4
Shillinger v. Haworthgreen ca10 · 1996 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant	1	1
State v. Baingreen neb · 2016 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016When a trial court learns of facts that make a potential Sixth Amendment violation appar- ent, the issue is properly presented to an appellate court on appeal, even if it was not raised at trial. - 399 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 8. 2016Parties’ Contentions Bain contends that the State’s intrusion into his confi- dential communications with his defense counsel is a Sixth Amendment violation that is presumptively prejudicial and - 404 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 requires dismissal of the charges.	1	1
United States v. Edmund Rosnergreen ca2 · 1973 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Federal and State Decisions R ecognize an Inherent Unfairness in the Government’s Possession of a Defendant’s Trial Strategy (a) U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Our starting point is Weatherford v. Bursey.9 There, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a civil rights action in which the 7 United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1224 (2d Cir. 1973), citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S. Ct. 457 , 86 L.	1	1
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490-491, n. 16 (2000) (noting “the distinction the Court has often recognized between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation” (citation omitted)).	1	1
State v. Lottergreen neb · 2003 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003Loiter, ante p. 245, 260, 664 N.W.2d 892, 907 (2003).	1	1
cluster 396244green ca8 · 1981 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982In order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Following the Cuyler decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Parker v. Parratt, 662 F.2d 479, 483 (8th Cir. 1981), reviewing an alleged sixth amendment violation resulting from a claimed conflict of interest, said: ‘‘It must also be acknowledged, however, that joint representation of multiple defendants with conflicting interests by a single attorney ‘is not per se violative of constitutional guaran	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Montejo v. Louisiana green scotus · 2009 2 sentences 2018"Since the right under both sources is waived using 656 the same procedure, ... doctrines ensuring voluntariness of the Fifth Amendment waiver simultaneously ensure the voluntariness of the Sixth Amendment waiver." Montejo, 556 U.S. at 795 , 129 S.Ct. 2079 . 2018"Since the right under both sources is waived using 656 the same procedure, ... doctrines ensuring voluntariness of the Fifth Amendment waiver simultaneously ensure the voluntariness of the Sixth Amendment waiver." Montejo, 556 U.S. at 795 , 129 S.Ct. 2079 .	2	2018–2018
Mickens v. Taylor green scotus · 2002 2 sentences 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L. 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L.	2	2006–2016
United States v. Wade green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2022In asserting his due process and Sixth Amendment claim, Prior focuses on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S. Ct. 1926 , 18 L. 2022In asserting his due process and Sixth Amendment claim, Prior focuses on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S. Ct. 1926 , 18 L.	1	2022–2022
cluster 21686 green · 2 sentences 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant	1	2016–2016
Glasser v. United States green scotus · 1942 2 sentences 2016Federal and State Decisions R ecognize an Inherent Unfairness in the Government’s Possession of a Defendant’s Trial Strategy (a) U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Our starting point is Weatherford v. Bursey.9 There, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a civil rights action in which the 7 United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1224 (2d Cir. 1973), citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S. Ct. 457 , 86 L. 2016Federal and State Decisions R ecognize an Inherent Unfairness in the Government’s Possession of a Defendant’s Trial Strategy (a) U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Our starting point is Weatherford v. Bursey.9 There, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a civil rights action in which the 7 United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1224 (2d Cir. 1973), citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S. Ct. 457 , 86 L.	1	2016–2016
State v. Newton green neb · 1979 2 sentences 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L. 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L.	1	2016–2016
James William Bishop v. Jim Rose, Warden green ca6 · 1983 2 sentences 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant	1	2016–2016
United States of America in No. 83-5233 v. Anthony J. Costanzo. Appeal of Anthony J. Costanzo in Nos. 82-5767, 83-5341/42 green ca3 · 1984 2 sentences 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant	1	2016–2016
United States v. Alan Ginsberg and Carlos Ivan Piedrahita green ca2 · 1985 2 sentences 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant 2016As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Weatherford, a Sixth Amendment violation is strongly indicated when a prosecutor 23 See Bishop v. Rose, 701 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1983). 24 Id. at 1156 . 25 See Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). 26 See, U.S. v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984). 27 See id. - 412 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BAIN Cite as 292 Neb. 398 knows the details of a defendant’s trial strategy or the State uses a defendant	1	2016–2016
Weatherford v. Bursey green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 2016Instead, it assumed that the gov- ernment had violated the Sixth Amendment but held that the Third Circuit had erred in dismissing the indictment: “[A]bsent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even though the vio- lation may have been deliberate.”18 16 Id., 429 U.S. at 556-57 . 17 United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 , 101 S. Ct. 665 , 66 L. 2016Instead, it assumed that the gov- ernment had violated the Sixth Amendment but held that the Third Circuit had erred in dismissing the indictment: “[A]bsent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even though the vio- lation may have been deliberate.”18 16 Id., 429 U.S. at 556-57 . 17 United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 , 101 S. Ct. 665 , 66 L.	1	2016–2016
County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna neutral neb · 2008 2 sentences 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L. 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L.	1	2016–2016
State v. Edwards green neb · 2016 2 sentences 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L. 2016If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief. 21 See County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 22 See State v. Newton, 202 Neb. 361 , 275 N.W.2d 297 (1979). - 22 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 294 Neb. 1 In 2002, in Mickens v. Taylor, [ 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5, 122 S. Ct. 1237 , 152 L.	1	2016–2016
United States v. Morrison green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 2016Instead, it assumed that the gov- ernment had violated the Sixth Amendment but held that the Third Circuit had erred in dismissing the indictment: “[A]bsent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even though the vio- lation may have been deliberate.”18 16 Id., 429 U.S. at 556-57 . 17 United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 , 101 S. Ct. 665 , 66 L. 2016Instead, it assumed that the gov- ernment had violated the Sixth Amendment but held that the Third Circuit had erred in dismissing the indictment: “[A]bsent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even though the vio- lation may have been deliberate.”18 16 Id., 429 U.S. at 556-57 . 17 United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 , 101 S. Ct. 665 , 66 L.	1	2016–2016
United States v. MacDonald green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 2006Normally, it is only after trial that that claim may fairly be assessed.” 435 U.S. at 860 . 2006Normally, it is only after trial that that claim may fairly be assessed.” 435 U.S. at 860 .	1	2006–2006
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2003As a general matter, a defendant alleging a Sixth Amendment violation must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id., at 694 . 2003As a general matter, a defendant alleging a Sixth Amendment violation must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id., at 694 .	1	2003–2003
Ring v. Arizona green scotus · 2002 2 sentences 2003Because, like other courts, we regard Apprendi as the jurisprudential source of the Sixth Amendment principle established by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S. Ct. 2428 , 153 L. 2003Because, like other courts, we regard Apprendi as the jurisprudential source of the Sixth Amendment principle established by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S. Ct. 2428 , 153 L.	1	2003–2003
United States v. John Novak green ca2 · 1990 2 sentences 2000In U.S. v. Novak, 903 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1990), the same court followed a similar rationale in concluding that representation by Joel Steinberg, who had been admitted to the bar on the basis of false representations regarding his legal education, constituted a per se Sixth Amendment violation. 2000The court concluded that “[i]n general, the Sixth Amendment guarantee is not satisfied if the accused is represented by a person who, for failure to meet substantive bar admission requirements, has never been admitted to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.” 903 F.2d at 887 .	1	2000–2000
State v. Hawthorne green neb · 1988 2 sentences 1993The court stated, “ ‘[T]here is generally no basis for finding a Sixth Amendment violation unless the accused can show how specific errors of counsel undermined the reliability of the finding of guilt.’ ” Id. at 344 , 431 N.W.2d at 631 . 1993The court stated, “ ‘[T]here is generally no basis for finding a Sixth Amendment violation unless the accused can show how specific errors of counsel undermined the reliability of the finding of guilt.’ ” Id. at 344 , 431 N.W.2d at 631 .	1	1993–1993
Taylor v. Louisiana green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 1989Ed. 2d 137 (1986), where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that it had never invoked the fair-cross-section principle to invalidate the use of either for-cause or peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or venires, to reflect the composition of the community at large. . . . [A]n extension of the fair cross-section requirement to petit juries would be unworkable and unsound____ In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 538 , 95 S. Ct. 692 , 42 L. 1989Ed. 2d 137 (1986), where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that it had never invoked the fair-cross-section principle to invalidate the use of either for-cause or peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or venires, to reflect the composition of the community at large. . . . [A]n extension of the fair cross-section requirement to petit juries would be unworkable and unsound____ In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 538 , 95 S. Ct. 692 , 42 L.	1	1989–1989
Lockhart v. McCree green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 1989In regard to the sixth amendment claim, the court relied on Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173-74 , 106 S. Ct. 1758 , 90 L. 1989In regard to the sixth amendment claim, the court relied on Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173-74 , 106 S. Ct. 1758 , 90 L.	1	1989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319 (5) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-303 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 476 (1968–2026) TX 433 (1980–2026) OH 199 (1977–2026) WA 155 (1975–2026) PA 149 (1971–2026) MI 147 (1976–2025) GA 138 (1979–2026) TN 131 (1981–2026) IL 115 (1975–2026) IN 108 (1978–2026) AZ 99 (1971–2026) DC 98 (1978–2026) FL 89 (1982–2026) IA 76 (1980–2025) NJ 71 (1977–2025) MD 65 (1971–2026) NC 65 (1980–2025) DE 64 (1976–2026) OR 61 (1974–2026) AL 59 (1981–2024) CO 51 (1981–2025) WI 51 (1980–2025) VA 51 (1983–2026) CT 49 (1982–2026) MA 46 (1974–2025) MO 46 (1973–2025) KS 45 (1990–2026) NY 44 (1972–2026) MS 44 (1982–2020) LA 38 (1983–2025) MN 36 (1984–2026) NM 36 (1982–2025) UT 36 (1983–2026) OK 29 (1977–2022) ID 29 (1979–2026) KY 24 (1972–2026) ME 22 (1973–2023) MT 20 (1975–2026) WV 18 (1981–2024) RI 18 (1979–2018) NE 18 (1982–2022) SD 15 (1969–2026) HI 15 (1981–2024) NV 14 (1982–2023) AR 13 (1988–2026) WY 13 (1983–2025) SC 12 (1975–2019) AK 10 (1979–2024) ND 10 (2003–2021) VT 10 (1979–2024) VI 7 (2002–2026) GU 4 (1978–2025) NH 2 (1991–2012)

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