line defense in Tennessee

2014In determining whether counsel breached this duty, counsel’s performance is reviewed “for ‘reasonableness under prevailing professional norms,’ which includes a context-dependent consideration of the challenged conduct as seen ‘from counsel's prospective at the time.’” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-89 )).

2013In determining whether counsel breached this duty, counsel's performance is reviewed “for ‘reasonableness under prevailing professional norms,’ which includes a context-dependent consideration of the challenged conduct as seen ‘from counsel's perspective at the time.’” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-89 )).

1987“Manifestly, a trial Judge must have some control over the dispatch of business in his court, and some discretion respecting the number of witnesses he will hear upon a specific line of inquiry incident to a case.” Powers v. McKenzie, 90 Tenn. 167, 182 , 16 S.W. 559, 562 (1891).

1987“Manifestly, a trial Judge must have some control over the dispatch of business in his court, and some discretion respecting the number of witnesses he will hear upon a specific line of inquiry incident to a case.” Powers v. McKenzie, 90 Tenn. 167, 182 , 16 S.W. 559, 562 (1891).

2012Similarly, in Johnson v. American Family Insurance, 160 Ohio App.3d 392 , 827 N.E.2d 403, 404 (2005), an insured sought compensation from her uninsured motorist carrier- for emotional distress stemming from the death of her sister in a car accident.

2012Similarly, in Johnson v. American Family Insurance, 160 Ohio App.3d 392 , 827 N.E.2d 403, 404 (2005), an insured sought compensation from her uninsured motorist carrier- for emotional distress stemming from the death of her sister in a car accident.

2012App. Mar. 23, 2012) (citing State v. Goodwin, 703 N.E.2d 1251, 1257 (Ohio 1999)).

2012See Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369-70 (Tenn. 1996). -50- Counsel does not have an absolute duty to investigate particular facts or a certain line of defense.

2009On resumption of Mr. Knox’s cross-examination, Defendant abandoned this line of questioning and did not ask Mr. Williamson about the nature of his pending charges. -10- “A defendant’s right to examine a witness to impeach his or her credibility or to establish that the witness is biased includes the right to examine a witness regarding any promises of leniency, promises to help the witness, or any other favorable treatment offered to the witness.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 670 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Sayles, 49 S.W.3d 275, 279 (Tenn. 2001)).

2009On resumption of Mr. Knox’s cross-examination, Defendant abandoned this line of questioning and did not ask Mr. Williamson about the nature of his pending charges. -10- “A defendant’s right to examine a witness to impeach his or her credibility or to establish that the witness is biased includes the right to examine a witness regarding any promises of leniency, promises to help the witness, or any other favorable treatment offered to the witness.” State v. Rice, 184 S.W.3d 646, 670 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Sayles, 49 S.W.3d 275, 279 (Tenn. 2001)).

2006See, e.g., In re: Wilson, 261 B.R. 664, 667 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2001) (finding mutual mistake where debtor did not believe creditor • had released its interest, notwithstanding debtor’s lack of involvement in and ignorance of creditor’s mistake); In re: Miller, 286 B.R. 334, 341 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1999). 13 .The Tennessee Supreme Court case of Fidelity Mutual Life Ins.

2006See, e.g., In re: Wilson, 261 B.R. 664, 667 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2001) (finding mutual mistake where debtor did not believe creditor • had released its interest, notwithstanding debtor’s lack of involvement in and ignorance of creditor’s mistake); In re: Miller, 286 B.R. 334, 341 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1999). 13 .The Tennessee Supreme Court case of Fidelity Mutual Life Ins.

2005Thus, although “no absolute duty exists to investigate particular facts or a certain line of defense,” see Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000), counsel “has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 .

2001A trial counsel’s decision to pursue a particular line of defense “may be determined or substantially influenced by the -8- defendant’s own statements or actions.” Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 583 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S. Ct. at 2066 ).

1998The function of a pleading is to “give notice to the parties and the trial court of the issues to be tried.” Castelli v. Lien, 910 S.W.2d 420, 429 (Tenn.App.1995). *686 Wife cannot contend that Husband was not surprised by this line of inquiry.

1996See also Whitmore v. Lockhart, 8 F.3d 614, 621 (8th Cir.1993). [W]hen the facts that support a certain line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether.

1996See also Whitmore v. Lockhart, 8 F.3d 614, 621 (8th Cir.1993). [W]hen the facts that support a certain line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether.

1988The Court pointed out that this entire line of inquiry would have been foreclosed “unless defendant thought the net advantage from opening it up would be with him”; therefore, “defendants ... have no valid complaint at the latitude which existing law allows to the prosecution to meet by cross-examination an issue voluntarily tendered by the defense.” Id. at 223.