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.
8 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
NIGHTENGALE v. Timmelgreen2 sentences2018Nightengale, 151 Idaho at 354, 256 P.3d at 762 . 2018Nightengale, 151 Idaho at 354, 256 P.3d at 762 . | 1 | 1 |
Bobby v. Van Hookgreen2 sentences2015See Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 12-13 , 130 S.Ct. 13, 19-20 , 175 L.Ed.2d 255, 261-62 (2009) (holding the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erred by focusing on the “number of aggravating factors instead of their weight ” in conducting a Strickland prejudice analysis). 2015See Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 12-13 , 130 S.Ct. 13, 19-20 , 175 L.Ed.2d 255, 261-62 (2009) (holding the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erred by focusing on the “number of aggravating factors instead of their weight ” in conducting a Strickland prejudice analysis). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Willisgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t | 1 | 1 |
Cuyler v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2008Id. at 348-49, 100 S.Ct. at 1718-19 ; Beasley v. State, 126 Idaho 356, 363 , 883 P.2d 714, 721 (Ct.App.1994) (while there was a potential conflict of interest from the manner in which the attorney was selected and compensated, defendant had not shown any deficiency in his counsel’s performance stemming from this). 2008Id. at 348-49, 100 S.Ct. at 1718-19 ; Beasley v. State, 126 Idaho 356, 363 , 883 P.2d 714, 721 (Ct.App.1994) (while there was a potential conflict of interest from the manner in which the attorney was selected and compensated, defendant had not shown any deficiency in his counsel’s performance stemming from this). | 1 | 1 |
Beasley v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Id. at 348-49, 100 S.Ct. at 1718-19 ; Beasley v. State, 126 Idaho 356, 363 , 883 P.2d 714, 721 (Ct.App.1994) (while there was a potential conflict of interest from the manner in which the attorney was selected and compensated, defendant had not shown any deficiency in his counsel’s performance stemming from this). 2008Id. at 348-49, 100 S.Ct. at 1718-19 ; Beasley v. State, 126 Idaho 356, 363 , 883 P.2d 714, 721 (Ct.App.1994) (while there was a potential conflict of interest from the manner in which the attorney was selected and compensated, defendant had not shown any deficiency in his counsel’s performance stemming from this). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t 2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t | 1 | 1 |
Douglas Rega v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t | 1 | 1 |
James F. Horton, II v. Deneice Mayle, Wardengreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t | 1 | 1 |
Cootz v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t 2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1996If we nevertheless apply the Strickland prejudice requirement, Boman must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 . 1996If we nevertheless apply the Strickland prejudice requirement, Boman must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Aragon v. State
green
2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t 2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hill v. Lockhart
green
2 sentences2008Hill, 474 U.S. at 59 , 106 S.Ct. at 370 , 88 L.Ed.2d at 210 . 2008Hill, 474 U.S. at 59 , 106 S.Ct. at 370 , 88 L.Ed.2d at 210 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pratt v. State
green
1 sentence2007The Court concluded that the attorney’s decision “does not constitute such an egregious circumstance warranting an exception to the Strickland prejudice requirement as it was strategically entered to bolster Pratt’s credibility and testimony concerning the murder and attempted murder charges.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Cronic
green
2 sentences2000In Cronic , the United States Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Strickland prejudice requirement only in egregious circumstances such as when the "accused is denied counsel at a critical stage of his trial,” or when the accused is "denied the right of effective cross-examination.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 , 104 S.Ct 2039 . 2000In Cronic , the United States Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Strickland prejudice requirement only in egregious circumstances such as when the "accused is denied counsel at a critical stage of his trial,” or when the accused is "denied the right of effective cross-examination.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 , 104 S.Ct 2039 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.