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.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Nicholsongreen2 sentences2016As for the first -element of the test, the court explained that a conflict of interest means a potential conflict, Id.-at ¶¶40, 42 (defining potential conflict as “a situation inherently conducive to and productive of divided loyalties") (citation omitted). 1 - 33 With regard to the adverse effect element, the court adopted the Fourth Circuit's tripartite test articulated in United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191 (4th Civ. 2010). 'Under this test, to show an adverse effect, a defendant must (1) identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that trial counsel could have pursued; 2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir.2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir.2013) ("To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel's failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043 , 1 | 3 | 3 |
Cuyler v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2024To prevail under this standard, the defendant must show that (1) counsel had a conflict of interest, meaning, as relevant here, they faced “a situation inherently conducive to and productive of divided loyalties,” such as concurrent representation, West, ¶¶ 40, 42 (citation omitted); and 5 (2) the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance, Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 348 .1 ¶ 16 To prove an adverse effect, the defendant must (1) identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that trial counsel could have pursued; (2) show that the alternative strategy or tactic was objectively r 2022Ybanez, ¶ 27 (citing West, ¶ 57); see also Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 (1980). ¶ 16 West, in applying the Sullivan prophylaxis, overruled Castro. | 1 | 2 |
Samuel C. Stoia v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir. 2013) (“To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.†(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir.2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir.2013) ("To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel's failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2015This language is similar to Strickland's standard for showing prejudice, which requires a defendant to show "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). ¶51 We conclude that the two-part standard is too deferential to counsel's subjective assessment of his representation. 2015This language is similar to Strickland's standard for showing prejudice, which requires a defendant to show "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). ¶51 We conclude that the two-part standard is too deferential to counsel's subjective assessment of his representation. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas Morelos v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir. 2013) (“To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.†(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir.2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir.2013) ("To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel's failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mickens v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2024Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 , 172 n.5 (2002). [T]o show an adverse effect, a defendant must (1) identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that counsel could have pursued, (2) show that the alternative strategy or tactic was objectively reasonable under the facts known to counsel at the time of the strategic decision, and (3) establish that counsel’s failure to pursue the strategy or tactic was linked to the conflict. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
West v. People Cano v. People
green
2 sentences2018Id. at ¶ 57, 341 P.3d at 533 . ¶ 28 With regard to the existence of a plausible alternative defense strategy, we noted, among other things, that ultimately the inquiry requires the defendant to identify an unpursued strategy that was "obviously in the defendant's interest under the circumstances." Id. at ¶ 58, 341 P.3d at 533 . 2018Id. at ¶ 57, 341 P.3d at 533 . ¶ 28 With regard to the existence of a plausible alternative defense strategy, we noted, among other things, that ultimately the inquiry requires the defendant to identify an unpursued strategy that was "obviously in the defendant's interest under the circumstances." Id. at ¶ 58, 341 P.3d at 533 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Virgil Lee Brownlee v. Michael Haley
green
2 sentences2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir. 2013) (“To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.†(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 2015See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir.2010); see also Morelos v. United States, 709 F.3d 1246, 1252 (8th Cir.2013) ("To prove a conflict produced an adverse effect, a defendant must identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel's failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043 , 1 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.