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.
331 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 45 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 sentences2026Moreover, as observed by the post-conviction court, “[w]hen a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black, 794 S.W.2d at 757 . 2026When the issue is that “trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). | 307 | 326 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 1990); see also Scott v. State, 936 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tenn. Crim. 2010App. 1990); see also Scott v. State, 936 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tenn. Crim. | 40 | 40 |
Quantel Taylor v. State of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2025Thus, in the context of a claim that trial counsel “failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his [or her] defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); Taylor, 443 S.W.3d at 85 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2025The supreme court has emphasized that “when a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Taylor v. State, 443 S.W.3d 80, 85 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 616 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004)). | 7 | 8 |
Pylant v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Once the witnesses are presented at the post-conviction hearing, “the post-conviction court must determine whether the testimony would have been (1) admissible at trial and (2) material to the defense.” Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854, 869 (Tenn. 2008). 2015This court has concluded that “[w]hen a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990). “„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 854, 869 (Tenn.2008) (quotin | 3 | 3 |
Owens v. Stategreen2 sentences2011App. 1990); see also Owens v. State, 13 S.W.3d 742, 756 (Tenn. Crim. 2011App. 1990); see also Owens v. -12- State, 13 S.W.3d 742, 756 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Cauthern v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The supreme court has emphasized that “when a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Taylor v. State, 443 S.W.3d 80, 85 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 616 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004)). 2018Taylor v. State, 443 S.W.3d 80, 84-85 (Tenn. 2014). “[I]t is axiomatic that ‘[w]hen a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.’” Taylor, 443 S.W.3d at 84-85 ; see also Cauthern, 145 S.W.3d at 616 . | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“There can be no speculation ‘as to what the [expert] evidence would have shown and . . . how it would have benefitted Petitioner.’” Brimmer v. State, 29 S.W.3d 497, 512 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (quoting Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 698 (Tenn. 1995)). 2017App. 1998) (quoting Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 698 (Tenn. 1995)). “‘[W]hen a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.’” Terrence Woods v. State, No. W2009-02060- CCA-R3-PC, 2010 WL 3619543 , at *10 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Brimmer v. Stategreen1 sentence2022“There can be no speculation ‘as to what the [expert] evidence would have shown and . . . how it would have benefitted Petitioner.’” Brimmer v. State, 29 S.W.3d 497, 512 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (quoting Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 698 (Tenn. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Denton v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“To establish prejudice, the petitioner must: (1) produce the witness at his post-conviction hearing; (2) show that through reasonable investigation, trial counsel could have located the witness; and (3) elicit both favorable and material testimony from the witness.” Denton v. State, 945 S.W.2d 793, 802-03 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Black, 794 S.W.2d at 757 ). | 1 | 1 |
Finch v. Stategreen1 sentence2015App. 1990) (“When a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.”). -5- Furthermore, we note that even if the claims were not waived, they would still be meritless as petitioner failed to demonstrate that “his lawyer‟s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; Finch, 226 S.W.3d at 315 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tenn. 1996); Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Tidwell v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tenn. 1996); Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adkins v. State
green
2 sentences2018Furthermore, trial counsel’s reasoning for not pursuing this theory of defense – that testimony regarding stalking would have been detrimental to the petitioner’s case and would have potentially opened the door to evidence of Mrs. Keplinger’s order of -7- protection against the petitioner – was a “reasonably based trial strategy” that we will not “second-guess.” See Adkins, 911 S.W.2d at 347 . 2015Furthermore, trial counsel‟s reasoning for not calling this witness – that her testimony would have been detrimental to the petitioner – was a “reasonably based trial strategy” that we will not “second-guess.” See Adkins, 911 S.W.2d at 347 . | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015App. 1990) (“When a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.”). -5- Furthermore, we note that even if the claims were not waived, they would still be meritless as petitioner failed to demonstrate that “his lawyer‟s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; Finch, 226 S.W.3d at 315 (citation omitted). 2007A reasonable probability is “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. -5- Furthermore, “[w]hen a [post-conviction] petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2007–2015 |
State v. Melson
green
1 sentence2018State v. Melson, 772 S.W.2d 417 , 419 n.2 (Tenn. 1989). -5- With respect to the Petitioner’s claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a mental evaluation or to present an expert witness to support his duress defense, this court has long held that “[w]hen a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Trevino v. Thaler
green
1 sentence2015App. 1990). -9- appeal.” Trevino, 133 S.Ct. at 1921 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.