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.
6 Nebraska opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bartlettgreen2 sentences1980“The decision to object or not to object is part of trial strategy and, accordingly, we grant due *669 deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics. ‘Effectiveness of counsel is not to be judged by hindsight.’ State v. Phillips, 186 Neb. 547 , 184 N. W. 2d 639 [1971].” State v. Bartlett, 199 Neb. 471, 476 , 259 N.W.2d, 917, 921 (1977). 1980“The decision to object or not to object is part of trial strategy and, accordingly, we grant due *669 deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics. ‘Effectiveness of counsel is not to be judged by hindsight.’ State v. Phillips, 186 Neb. 547 , 184 N. W. 2d 639 [1971].” State v. Bartlett, 199 Neb. 471, 476 , 259 N.W.2d, 917, 921 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
State v. McCurrygreen2 sentences2020Regarding whether exclusion of the evidence deprived Said of a fair trial, as noted above, the right to present a complete defense does not allow a defendant “an unfettered right to offer testimony that is . . . otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40, 66 , 891 N.W.2d 663, 681 (2017). 2020Regarding whether exclusion of the evidence deprived Said of a fair trial, as noted above, the right to present a complete defense does not allow a defendant “an unfettered right to offer testimony that is . . . otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40, 66 , 891 N.W.2d 663, 681 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colgrovegreen2 sentences1986As we stated in State v. Colgrove, 207 Neb. 496, 501 , 299 N.W.2d 753, 756 (1980): “[W]e grant due deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics . . . particularly where, as here, it appears no valid objections exist.” Defense counsel’s decision in this case not to object to the State’s closing argument was trial strategy clearly within the bounds of effective assistance of counsel. ■ The defendant next alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to procure witnesses favorable to the defendant who would have tended to prove that there had been w 1986As we stated in State v. Colgrove, 207 Neb. 496, 501 , 299 N.W.2d 753, 756 (1980): “[W]e grant due deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics . . . particularly where, as here, it appears no valid objections exist.” Defense counsel’s decision in this case not to object to the State’s closing argument was trial strategy clearly within the bounds of effective assistance of counsel. ■ The defendant next alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to procure witnesses favorable to the defendant who would have tended to prove that there had been w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ondrakgreen2 sentences1980See, also, State v. Ondrak, 186 Neb. 838 , 186 N.W.2d 727 (1971). 1980See, also, State v. Ondrak, 186 Neb. 838 , 186 N.W.2d 727 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Phillips
neutral
2 sentences1980“The decision to object or not to object is part of trial strategy and, accordingly, we grant due *669 deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics. ‘Effectiveness of counsel is not to be judged by hindsight.’ State v. Phillips, 186 Neb. 547 , 184 N. W. 2d 639 [1971].” State v. Bartlett, 199 Neb. 471, 476 , 259 N.W.2d, 917, 921 (1977). 1980“The decision to object or not to object is part of trial strategy and, accordingly, we grant due *669 deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics. ‘Effectiveness of counsel is not to be judged by hindsight.’ State v. Phillips, 186 Neb. 547 , 184 N. W. 2d 639 [1971].” State v. Bartlett, 199 Neb. 471, 476 , 259 N.W.2d, 917, 921 (1977). | 3 | 1977–1980 |
State v. Fowler
green
2 sentences1981Concerning his failure to make certain evidentiary objections, cross-examine witnesses, and make an opening statement, he stated that his actions were the result of tactical decisions. ‘“[W]e grant due deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics.’” State v. Fowler, supra at 656 , 271 N.W.2d at 347 . 1981Concerning his failure to make certain evidentiary objections, cross-examine witnesses, and make an opening statement, he stated that his actions were the result of tactical decisions. "`[W]e grant due deference to the discretion of defense counsel to formulate trial tactics.'" State v. Fowler, supra at 656 , 271 N.W.2d at 347 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.