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.
11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gunning v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The Court held that the decision whether to give the instruction should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court, stating as follows: “We do not find instructions on such issues to be always mandatory, but neither do we consider them never necessary nor per se improper as suggested by the trial judge.' We instead recognize that an identification instruction may be appropriate and necessary in certain instances, but the *69 matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Id. at 348 , 701 A.2d at 382 . 2014The Court held that the decision whether to give the instruction should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court, stating as follows: “We do not find instructions on such issues to be always mandatory, but neither do we consider them never necessary nor per se improper as suggested by the trial judge.' We instead recognize that an identification instruction may be appropriate and necessary in certain instances, but the *69 matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Id. at 348 , 701 A.2d at 382 . | 2 | 7 |
Nance v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Rule 5-802.1(c) ] has the same cross-examination requirement as the prior inconsistent statement exception: the declarant must be available for cross-examination at the trial where the prior identification is admitted.”) (citing Nance v. State, 331 Md. 549, 560 , 629 A.2d 633 (1993); Bedford v. State, 293 Md. 172, 176-177 , 443 A.2d 78 (1982)) (emphasis added); see also Md. 2001Rule 5-802.1(c) ] has the same cross-examination requirement as the prior inconsistent statement exception: the declarant must be available for cross-examination at the trial where the prior identification is admitted.”) (citing Nance v. State, 331 Md. 549, 560 , 629 A.2d 633 (1993); Bedford v. State, 293 Md. 172, 176-177 , 443 A.2d 78 (1982)) (emphasis added); see also Md. | 1 | 2 |
Ware v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59-60 , 702 A.2d 699, 718-719 (1997) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to a requested instruction where the instruction conflicts with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(i)); Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 382 (1997) (holding that the giving of an identification instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge); Dean v. State, 325 Md. 230 , 600 A.2d 409 (1992); Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488 , *354 490 (Minn.1986) (holding that the trial judge has discretion generally in determining the propriety of a specific jury instr 2001See, e.g., Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59-60 , 702 A.2d 699, 718-719 (1997) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to a requested instruction where the instruction conflicts with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(i)); Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 382 (1997) (holding that the giving of an identification instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge); Dean v. State, 325 Md. 230 , 600 A.2d 409 (1992); Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488 , *354 490 (Minn.1986) (holding that the trial judge has discretion generally in determining the propriety of a specific jury instr | 1 | 1 |
Alholm v. Wiltgreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59-60 , 702 A.2d 699, 718-719 (1997) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to a requested instruction where the instruction conflicts with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(f)); Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 382 (1997) (holding that the giving of an identification instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge); Dean v. State, 325 Md. 230 , 600 A.2d 409 (1992); Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn.1986) (holding that the trial judge has discretion generally in determining the propriety of a specific jury instruction 2001See, e.g., Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59-60 , 702 A.2d 699, 718-719 (1997) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to a requested instruction where the instruction conflicts with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(i)); Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 382 (1997) (holding that the giving of an identification instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge); Dean v. State, 325 Md. 230 , 600 A.2d 409 (1992); Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488 , *354 490 (Minn.1986) (holding that the trial judge has discretion generally in determining the propriety of a specific jury instr | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Stategreen2 sentences1997If a party requests an identification instruction in a criminal case, the trial judge must evaluate whether the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case at hand, keeping in mind that the purpose of a jury instruction is “to aid the jury in clearly understanding the case, to provide guidance for the jury’s deliberations, and to help the jury arrive at a correct verdict.” Chambers v. State, 337 Md. 44, 48 , 650 A.2d 727, 729 (1994). 1997If a party requests an identification instruction in a criminal case, the trial judge must evaluate whether the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case at hand, keeping in mind that the purpose of a jury instruction is “to aid the jury in clearly understanding the case, to provide guidance for the jury’s deliberations, and to help the jury arrive at a correct verdict.” Chambers v. State, 337 Md. 44, 48 , 650 A.2d 727, 729 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Allen Caingreen2 sentences1997Some courts have suggested that an identification instruction is mandatory if eyewitness testimony is the only evidence of the identity of the criminal actor, see, e.g., United States v. Holley, 502 F.2d 273, 275 (4th Cir.1974), or if the reliability of the identification testimony is in doubt, see, e.g., United States v. Cain, 616 F.2d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.1980). 1997Some courts have suggested that an identification instruction is mandatory if eyewitness testimony is the only evidence of the identity of the criminal actor, see, e.g., United States v. Holley, 502 F.2d 273, 275 (4th Cir.1974), or if the reliability of the identification testimony is in doubt, see, e.g., United States v. Cain, 616 F.2d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Albert Junior Holleygreen2 sentences1997Some courts have suggested that an identification instruction is mandatory if eyewitness testimony is the only evidence of the identity of the criminal actor, see, e.g., United States v. Holley, 502 F.2d 273, 275 (4th Cir.1974), or if the reliability of the identification testimony is in doubt, see, e.g., United States v. Cain, 616 F.2d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.1980). 1997Some courts have suggested that an identification instruction is mandatory if eyewitness testimony is the only evidence of the identity of the criminal actor, see, e.g., United States v. Holley, 502 F.2d 273, 275 (4th Cir.1974), or if the reliability of the identification testimony is in doubt, see, e.g., United States v. Cain, 616 F.2d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 178 , 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985), we referenced Md. 1997In Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 178 , 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985), we referenced Md. | 1 | 1 |
Mouzone v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Mouzone v. State, 294 Md. 692, 702 , 452 A.2d 661, 666 (1982)(holding that witness’s statement to police was inadmissible under extrajudicial identification exception because statement “simply contained too much,” including other hearsay evidence not within any exception), overruled in part by Nance, 331 Md. at 569 , 629 A.2d at 643 . 1996See Mouzone v. State, 294 Md. 692, 702 , 452 A.2d 661, 666 (1982)(holding that witness’s statement to police was inadmissible under extrajudicial identification exception because statement “simply contained too much,” including other hearsay evidence not within any exception), overruled in part by Nance, 331 Md. at 569 , 629 A.2d at 643 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). 2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bedford v. State
green
2 sentences2001Rule 5-802.1(c) ] has the same cross-examination requirement as the prior inconsistent statement exception: the declarant must be available for cross-examination at the trial where the prior identification is admitted.”) (citing Nance v. State, 331 Md. 549, 560 , 629 A.2d 633 (1993); Bedford v. State, 293 Md. 172, 176-177 , 443 A.2d 78 (1982)) (emphasis added); see also Md. 2001Rule 5-802.1(c) ] has the same cross-examination requirement as the prior inconsistent statement exception: the declarant must be available for cross-examination at the trial where the prior identification is admitted.”) (citing Nance v. State, 331 Md. 549, 560 , 629 A.2d 633 (1993); Bedford v. State, 293 Md. 172, 176-177 , 443 A.2d 78 (1982)) (emphasis added); see also Md. | 2 | 1996–2001 |
Imes v. State
green
2 sentences2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). 2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
James v. State
neutral
2 sentences2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). 2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lowry v. State
green
2 sentences2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). 2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dean v. State
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59-60 , 702 A.2d 699, 718-719 (1997) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to a requested instruction where the instruction conflicts with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(i)); Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 382 (1997) (holding that the giving of an identification instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge); Dean v. State, 325 Md. 230 , 600 A.2d 409 (1992); Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488 , *354 490 (Minn.1986) (holding that the trial judge has discretion generally in determining the propriety of a specific jury instr 2001See, e.g., Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59-60 , 702 A.2d 699, 718-719 (1997) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to a requested instruction where the instruction conflicts with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(i)); Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 382 (1997) (holding that the giving of an identification instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge); Dean v. State, 325 Md. 230 , 600 A.2d 409 (1992); Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488 , *354 490 (Minn.1986) (holding that the trial judge has discretion generally in determining the propriety of a specific jury instr | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lakeside v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2001In Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 , 98 S.Ct. 1091 , 55 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978), the Supreme Court was presented with the question whether a cautionary instruction, given over defense counsel's objection, was a violation of the federal constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. 2001In Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 , 98 S.Ct. 1091 , 55 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978), the Supreme Court was presented with the question whether a cautionary instruction, given over defense counsel's objection, was a violation of the federal constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jackson v. State
green
2 sentences1997The appellant in Jackson requested an identification instruction that set forth the factors that the jury should consider in evaluating the identification, such as the “[a]dequacy of opportunity to observe the criminal actor,” the “[c]apacity of the witness to observe,” and the “[a]ttentiveness of the witness.” 69 Md.App. at 659 , 519 A.2d at 757-58 . 1997The appellant in Jackson requested an identification instruction that set forth the factors that the jury should consider in evaluating the identification, such as the “[a]dequacy of opportunity to observe the criminal actor,” the “[c]apacity of the witness to observe,” and the “[a]ttentiveness of the witness.” 69 Md.App. at 659 , 519 A.2d at 757-58 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Melvin Telfaire
green
2 sentences1997The Telfaire court further opined that in cases where identification is a crucial issue, the trial judge should give the identification instruction “as a matter of routine,” not merely upon request of defense counsel. 469 F.2d at 555 n. 11. 1997The Telfaire court further opined that in cases where identification is a crucial issue, the trial judge should give the identification instruction "as a matter of routine," not merely upon request of defense counsel. 469 F.2d at 555 n. 11. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Guster
green
2 sentences1997Id. 1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. McDonnell
green
2 sentences1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr 1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Brinson
green
2 sentences1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr 1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Jackson v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
green
2 sentences1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr 1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ex Parte Duffy
green
2 sentences1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr 1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Bryant
neutral
2 sentences1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr 1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Commonwealth v. Bailey
green
2 sentences1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr 1982Dec. 721 , 399 N.E.2d 1010 (1980) (defense attorney failed to challenge a weak identification or challenge a confession defendant said was coerced); People v. McDonnell, 91 Mich. App. 458 , 283 N.W.2d 773 (1979) (attorney did not seriously investigate or advance an insanity defense for allegedly tactical reasons); People v. Bryant, 77 Mich. App. 108 , 258 N.W.2d 162 (1977) (failure to adequately prepare and present insanity defense); Jackson v. Warden, 91 Nev. 430 , 537 P.2d 473 (1975) (defense counsel failed to conduct careful investigations and inquiries thereby omitting a crucial defense fr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.