286 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 20 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 . 2025Thus, in the context of a claim 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. | 261 | 280 |
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 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. 2020As repeatedly noted above, “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, 443 S.W.3d at 85 (quoting Black, 794 S.W.2d at 757 ). | 7 | 8 |
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. 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 |
Pylant v. Stategreen2 sentences2015This 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 2014App. 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) (quoting Black, 794 -11- S.W.2d at 757). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2017App. 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. | 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 |
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.