6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Deck v. Stategreen2 sentences2022However, in the following sentence, the motion court elaborated: “There is no reasonable probability the jury would have returned a different verdict.” Later, the motion court’s judgment stated that the refusal to submit a self-defense instruction based on the castle doctrine was “not outcome determinative.” Sanders argues that, in Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. banc 2002), the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed the distinction between the showing of prejudice necessary to justify 18 reversal with respect to plain error on direct appeal and the showing required under Strickland, such that a 2022See id. at 427-28 (noting that Strickland rejected an outcome determinative test). | 2 | 2 |
Michael White v. Charles Ryangreen1 sentence2020See also White v. Ryan, 895 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluding that state court’s “prejudice determination was contrary to Strickland” where “the court determined whether it would have imposed a death penalty if it had considered the mitigation evidence that McVay failed to present. | 1 | 1 |
Mose Young v. Michael Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Centergreen1 sentence2015The Missouri Supreme Court held that the Strickland prejudice standard applied to the movant’s claim, even though the Court recognized that showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome might well be impossible where qualified venire-persons were improperly excluded from a jury. 263 S.W.3d at 648 (quoting Young v. Bowersox, 161 F.3d 1159, 1160-61 (8th Cir.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 703 . 82. 2022Without a finding of abandonment 2 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 4 by appointed counsel, the motion court lacked the authority to address the merits of the untimely amended motion. | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Saranchak v. Beard
green
2 sentences2020Similarly, in Saranchak v. Beard, 616 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit held that a state court had improperly conducted a Strickland prejudice inquiry, where the state court “highlight[ed] the fact that the [post-conviction relief] judge was also the judge” at trial, and erroneously “consider[ed] the effect the new evidence would have had on that particular judge . . . rather than considering, more abstractly, the effect the same evidence would have had on an unspecified, objective factfinder, as required by Strickland.” Id. at 309 . 2020Similarly, in Saranchak v. Beard, 616 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit held that a state court had improperly conducted a Strickland prejudice inquiry, where the state court “highlight[ed] the fact that the [post-conviction relief] judge was also the judge” at trial, and erroneously “consider[ed] the effect the new evidence would have had on that particular judge . . . rather than considering, more abstractly, the effect the same evidence would have had on an unspecified, objective factfinder, as required by Strickland.” Id. at 309 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Strong v. State
green
1 sentence2015The Missouri Supreme Court held that the Strickland prejudice standard applied to the movant’s claim, even though the Court recognized that showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome might well be impossible where qualified venire-persons were improperly excluded from a jury. 263 S.W.3d at 648 (quoting Young v. Bowersox, 161 F.3d 1159, 1160-61 (8th Cir.1998)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.