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.
62 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2020The presentation of the witness at the post-conviction hearing is typically the only way for the petitioner to establish: (a) a material witness existed and the witness could have been discovered but for counsel’s neglect in his investigation of the case, (b) a known witness was not interviewed, (c) the failure to discover or interview a witness inured to his prejudice, or (d) the failure to have a known witness present or call the witness to the stand resulted in the denial of critical evidence which inured to the prejudice of the petitioner. - 49 - Id. 2018The presentation of the witness at the post-conviction hearing is typically the only way for the petitioner to establish that failure to “call the witness to the stand resulted in the denial of critical evidence which inured to the prejudice of the petitioner.” Id. | 27 | 52 |
Pylant v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Plyant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854, 869 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Black, 794 S.W.2d at 757 ). 2014Nevertheless, we note that the Petitioner failed to present Mr. Gates as a witness at the post-conviction hearing. “‘As a general rule, this is the only way the petitioner can establish that . . . the failure to have a known witness present or call the witness to the stand resulted in the denial of critical evidence which inured to the prejudice of the petitioner.’” Pylant, 263 S.W.3d at 869 (quoting Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Denton v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Denton v. State, 945 S.W.2d 793, 802-03 (Tenn. Crim. 2013See, e.g., Denton v. State, 945 S.W.2d 793, 802-03 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Morgan v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See, Morgan v. State, 1 Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cauthern v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Nov. 7, 2012) (“[A] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to call a witness must be supported by testimony from the witness at the post-conviction hearing.”); Cauthem, 145 S.W.3d at 616 (rejecting a claim that trial counsel failed to interview a witness where the petitioner did not present the testimony of the witness in question). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anthonyred1 sentence2013The post-conviction court, counsel for the State, and post-conviction counsel agreed that appellate counsel was limited on appeal by the issues raised in trial counsel’s motion for 2 (...continued) which required courts to examine the offenses to determine “whether each [statutory] provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 303 . | 1 | 1 |
Wade v. Stategreen1 sentence2007However, as stated previously, the post-conviction court may not speculate as to a witness’s testimony, Black, 794 S.W.2d at 757 ; see also Wade, 914 S.W.2d at 102 ; furthermore, by failing to present the witness at the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2016“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. -9- Generally, presenting a witness at the post-conviction hearing “is the only way the petitioner can establish that the failure to . . . call the witness . . . resulted in the denial of critical evidence which inured to the prejudice of the petitioner.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2013The post-conviction court, counsel for the State, and post-conviction counsel agreed that appellate counsel was limited on appeal by the issues raised in trial counsel’s motion for 2 (...continued) which required courts to examine the offenses to determine “whether each [statutory] provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 303 . 2013The post-conviction court, counsel for the State, and post-conviction counsel agreed that appellate counsel was limited on appeal by the issues raised in trial counsel’s motion for 2 (...continued) which required courts to examine the offenses to determine “whether each [statutory] provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see Anthony, 817 S.W.2d at 303 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.