6 Delaware opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wainwright v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Id. 46 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (internal citation omitted). 47 Del. | 1 | 1 |
Bullock v. Stategreen2 sentences2025In the post-conviction Strickland context, absent some unusual circumstance, 15 or a structural error, such as a complete deprivation of counsel, 16 13 Id. 14 See, e.g., Bullock, 775 A.2d at 1053 (observing that, “[s]imply because the parties in a case agree on a particular set of instructions, does not excuse the trial judge’s duty to give proper instructions.”); id. at 1054 (holding that without a proper instruction, “the jury lacked the proper framework in which to analyze the facts in this case.”); see also Hall v. State, 560 A.2d 490 , 1989 WL 27783 , at *1 (Del. 2025In the post-conviction Strickland context, absent some unusual circumstance, 15 or a structural error, such as a complete deprivation of counsel, 16 13 Id. 14 See, e.g., Bullock, 775 A.2d at 1053 (observing that, “[s]imply because the parties in a case agree on a particular set of instructions, does not excuse the trial judge’s duty to give proper instructions.”); id. at 1054 (holding that without a proper instruction, “the jury lacked the proper framework in which to analyze the facts in this case.”); see also Hall v. State, 560 A.2d 490 , 1989 WL 27783 , at *1 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“We generally decline to review contentions not raised below and not fairly presented to the trial court for decision.” Turner v. State, 5 A.3d 612, 615 (Del. 2010) (citing Del. | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2019Thus, we make a rare exception and review his constitutional claim for the first time on appeal de novo.32 31 App. to Opening Br. at A238 (Jan. 2, 2018 email from court to counsel). 32 McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1510-11 (2018) (“Because a client’s autonomy, not counsel’s competence, is in issue, we do not apply our ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jurisprudence. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2003Id. at 2083. | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart v. McCreegreen2 sentences2003Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 183, n. 18 , 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1770, n. 18 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“The majority in Adams rejected the dissent’s claim that there was ‘no plausible distinction between the role of the jury in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial and its role [... ] in the sentencing phase.’ ”) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 54 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)). 2003Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 183, n. 18 , 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1770, n. 18 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“The majority in Adams rejected the dissent’s claim that there was ‘no plausible distinction between the role of the jury in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial and its role [... ] in the sentencing phase.’ ”) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 54 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2017Batson, 476 U.S. at 86-88 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 (excluding jurors based on race "violates a defendant's right to equal protection," "unconstitutionally discriminate[s] against the excluded juror," and "undermine[s] public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice"). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences2003Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 183, n. 18 , 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1770, n. 18 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“The majority in Adams rejected the dissent’s claim that there was ‘no plausible distinction between the role of the jury in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial and its role [... ] in the sentencing phase.’ ”) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 54 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)). 2003Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 183, n. 18 , 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1770, n. 18 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“The majority in Adams rejected the dissent’s claim that there was ‘no plausible distinction between the role of the jury in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial and its role [... ] in the sentencing phase.’ ”) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 54 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.