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.
16 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackie Evans v. Leo Meyer, Warden, Logan Correctional Centergreen2 sentences1998See e.g., Evans v. Meyer, 742 F.2d 371 , 375 (CA7 1984). ("It is inconceivable to us . . . that [the defendant] would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received"). 1995See, e.g., Evans v. Meyer, 742 F.2d 371, 375 ([7th Cir.] 1984) (‘It is inconceivable to us ... that [the defendant] would have gone to trial on a defense of [extreme emotional disturbance], or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received.’).” Id., 59. | 2 | 2 |
Hill v. Lockhartgreen2 sentences2017The United States Supreme Court has held that "where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial ... [and thus would have led counsel to change her recommendation as to the plea]. ... [T]hese predictions of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without regard for the idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker." (Citations omitted; internal quo 2017The United States Supreme Court has held that "where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial ... [and thus would have led counsel to change her recommendation as to the plea]. ... [T]hese predictions of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without regard for the idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker." (Citations omitted; internal quo | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Copas v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2003Similarly, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial." (Internal citations and quotations CT Page 2578-ed omitted.) Id. , 156-57. 2002Similarly, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial ." (Emphasis added.) Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139 , 156-7 , 662 A.2d 718 (1995), quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). | 8 | 2000–2003 |
Henry v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2001Similarly, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Henry v. Commissioner of Correction, 60 Conn. App. 313, 318 , 759 A.2d 118 (2000); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S. Ct. 366 , 88 L. 2001Similarly, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Henry v. Commissioner of Correction, 60 Conn. App. 313, 318 , 759 A.2d 118 (2000); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S. Ct. 366 , 88 L. | 6 | 2000–2001 |
Carraway v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2017The United States Supreme Court has held that "where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial ... [and thus would have led counsel to change her recommendation as to the plea]. ... [T]hese predictions of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without regard for the idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker." (Citations omitted; internal quo 2017The United States Supreme Court has held that "where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial ... [and thus would have led counsel to change her recommendation as to the plea]. ... [T]hese predictions of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without regard for the idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker." (Citations omitted; internal quo | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.