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 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dalessandrogreen2 sentences2017“A substantial defense is one that might have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” People v Kelly, 186 Mich App 524, 526 ; 465 NW2d 569 (1990); See Dalessandro, 165 Mich App at 573 (“An 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.”). 2017“A substantial defense is one that might have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” People v Kelly, 186 Mich App 524, 526 ; 465 NW2d 569 (1990); See Dalessandro, 165 Mich App at 573 (“An 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.”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2026On appeal, no one disputes that defense counsel’s introduction of highly damaging and prejudicial testimony fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.10 However, “[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.” Strickland, 466 US at 691 . 2022“An 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.” Id. | 6 | 2018–2026 |
People v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2017“A substantial defense is one that might have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” People v Kelly, 186 Mich App 524, 526 ; 465 NW2d 569 (1990); See Dalessandro, 165 Mich App at 573 (“An 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.”). 2017“A substantial defense is one that might have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” People v Kelly, 186 Mich App 524, 526 ; 465 NW2d 569 (1990); See Dalessandro, 165 Mich App at 573 (“An 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.”). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Lewis
red
2 sentences1974In People v Lewis, 294 Mich 684 ; 293 NW 907 (1940), our Supreme Court held that it was error to admit business records into evidence in a criminal proceeding under an exception to the hearsay rule because to do so deprives the defendant of his right of confrontation as guaranteed by Const 1963, art 1 § 20, and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1974In People v Lewis, 294 Mich 684 ; 293 NW 907 (1940), our Supreme Court held that it was error to admit business records into evidence in a criminal proceeding under an exception to the hearsay rule because to do so deprives the defendant of his right of confrontation as guaranteed by Const 1963, art 1 § 20, and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | 2 | 1973–1974 |
People v. Ginther
green
2 sentences2016Therefore, “[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside judgment in a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.” Id. at 691. 2016Therefore, “[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside judgment in a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.” Id. at 691. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.