7 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Leecangreen2 sentences2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 (1986). 2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
Russo v. Hartigangreen2 sentences2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. 2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. | 2 | 2 |
Stevens v. Fulcomergreen2 sentences2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. 2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. | 2 | 2 |
Maggitt v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. 2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 541 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bellamy
green
2 sentences2024A habeas proceeding thus enables the court to determine whether counsel’s [defi- ciency] was due to mere incompetence or to counsel’s trial strategy, which would not be possible in a direct appeal in which there is no possibility of an evidentiary hearing.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400, 431 , 147 A.3d 655 (2016). ‘‘[O]n the rare occasions that [our Supreme Court has] addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, [it has] limited [its] review to allegations that the defendant’s sixth amendment rights had been jeopardized by the ac 2024A habeas proceeding thus enables the court to determine whether counsel’s [defi- ciency] was due to mere incompetence or to counsel’s trial strategy, which would not be possible in a direct appeal in which there is no possibility of an evidentiary hearing.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400, 431 , 147 A.3d 655 (2016). ‘‘[O]n the rare occasions that [our Supreme Court has] addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, [it has] limited [its] review to allegations that the defendant’s sixth amendment rights had been jeopardized by the ac | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Kitchens
green
2 sentences2011Our Supreme Court has emphasized that “a habeas proceeding provides a superior forum for the review of a claim of ineffective assistance because it provides the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing in which the attorney whose conduct is challenged may *636 testify . . . .” State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 496-97 , 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 2011Our Supreme Court has emphasized that “a habeas proceeding provides a superior forum for the review of a claim of ineffective assistance because it provides the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing in which the attorney whose conduct is challenged may *636 testify . . . .” State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 496-97 , 10 A.3d 942 (2011). | 2 | 2011–2013 |
Goldberg v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1985In so holding, the court held that “due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Id., 269 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.