45 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mickens v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2012Consequently, we will discuss Mickens and Jenkins, reconcile them, and apply that reconciliation to the facts'of this case'. ' Mickens v. Taylor In Mickens , the United States Supreme Court answered the question of “what a defendant must show in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where die trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it knew or reasonably should have known.” Mickens, 535 U.S. at 164 . 2012Consequently, we will discuss Mickens and Jenkins, reconcile them, and apply that reconciliation to the facts'of this case'. ' Mickens v. Taylor In Mickens , the United States Supreme Court answered the question of “what a defendant must show in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where die trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it knew or reasonably should have known.” Mickens, 535 U.S. at 164 . | 3 | 4 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012Regarding tire first category of an attorney’s deficient performance, the Mickens Court explained that the test for establishing a Sixth Amendment violation was defined in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . 2012Regarding tire first category of an attorney’s deficient performance, the Mickens Court explained that the test for establishing a Sixth Amendment violation was defined in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Trassgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). 2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fordgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). 2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Jones, 290 Kan. 373, 376 , 228 P.3d 394 (2010). 2023See State v. Jones, 290 Kan. 373, 376 , 228 P.3d 394 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Weatherford v. Burseygreen2 sentences2023Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 550-58 , 97 S. Ct. 837 , 51 L. 2023Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 550-58 , 97 S. Ct. 837 , 51 L. | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Hannigangreen1 sentence2022Under federal law, a district court need not directly question the defendant about a factual stipulation and the court may accept it "so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorney's decision." Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding evidentiary stipulation against Sixth Amendment challenge because no evidence showed that the defendant disagreed with or objected to his counsel's decision); cf. United States v. Herndon, 982 F.2d 1411, 1418 (10th Cir. 1992) (advising but not requiring a district 36 court to address defendant directly to ensure that the " | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edward Avery Herndongreen1 sentence2022Under federal law, a district court need not directly question the defendant about a factual stipulation and the court may accept it "so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorney's decision." Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding evidentiary stipulation against Sixth Amendment challenge because no evidence showed that the defendant disagreed with or objected to his counsel's decision); cf. United States v. Herndon, 982 F.2d 1411, 1418 (10th Cir. 1992) (advising but not requiring a district 36 court to address defendant directly to ensure that the " | 1 | 1 |
Edward J. Zakrzewski v. James McDonoughgreen2 sentences2021United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2013); Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). 2021United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2013); Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Debra Ratliffgreen2 sentences2021United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2013); Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). 2021United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2013); Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Slappygreen2 sentences2020See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 , 103 S. Ct. 1610 , 75 L. 2020See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 , 103 S. Ct. 1610 , 75 L. | 1 | 1 |
Richard K. Wells, K-2894 v. George Petsock, Superintendentgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding 30-day continuance to investigate defendant's postarrest conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt a valid reason for delay); Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 766 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[D]elays attributable to the dilatory actions of the defendant cut against a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation."); Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 258 (3rd Cir. 1991) ("When the reason for the delay originates with the defendant or his counsel, such delay will not be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant' 2016See, e.g., United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding 30-day continuance to investigate defendant's postarrest conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt a valid reason for delay); Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 766 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[D]elays attributable to the dilatory actions of the defendant cut against a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation."); Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 258 (3rd Cir. 1991) ("When the reason for the delay originates with the defendant or his counsel, such delay will not be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant' | 1 | 1 |
Hakeem v. Beyergreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding 30-day continuance to investigate defendant's postarrest conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt a valid reason for delay); Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 766 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[D]elays attributable to the dilatory actions of the defendant cut against a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation."); Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 258 (3rd Cir. 1991) ("When the reason for the delay originates with the defendant or his counsel, such delay will not be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant' 2016See, e.g., United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding 30-day continuance to investigate defendant's postarrest conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt a valid reason for delay); Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 766 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[D]elays attributable to the dilatory actions of the defendant cut against a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation."); Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 258 (3rd Cir. 1991) ("When the reason for the delay originates with the defendant or his counsel, such delay will not be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant' | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Danny Harmongreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding 30-day continuance to investigate defendant's postarrest conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt a valid reason for delay); Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 766 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[D]elays attributable to the dilatory actions of the defendant cut against a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation."); Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 258 (3rd Cir. 1991) ("When the reason for the delay originates with the defendant or his counsel, such delay will not be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant' 2016See, e.g., United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877, 884-885 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding 30-day continuance to investigate defendant's postarrest conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt a valid reason for delay); Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 766 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[D]elays attributable to the dilatory actions of the defendant cut against a finding of a Sixth Amendment violation."); Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 258 (3rd Cir. 1991) ("When the reason for the delay originates with the defendant or his counsel, such delay will not be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant' | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hayesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Crespo-Riosgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Neder v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gleasongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dixongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Cronicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Massiah v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Samuel Howard Peeler and Dennis Alan Peeler v. Donald Wyrick, Warden and Attorney General, State of Missourigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Galaviz
green
2 sentences2023"The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches on the filing of formal charges or following arraignment when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant." State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 174 , 291 P.3d 62 (2012). 2023"The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches on the filing of formal charges or following arraignment when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant." State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 174 , 291 P.3d 62 (2012). | 3 | 2014–2023 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2022Sixth Amendment claim Craige's argument under the federal Constitution is likewise meritless as our Kansas Supreme Court has held that restitution does not implicate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as contemplated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2022Sixth Amendment claim Craige's argument under the federal Constitution is likewise meritless as our Kansas Supreme Court has held that restitution does not implicate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as contemplated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 3 | 2010–2022 |
Doggett v. United States
green
2 sentences2022Although that sort of latent prejudice "cannot alone carry a Sixth Amendment claim without regard to the other Barker criteria, . . . it is 19 part of the mix of relevant facts." 505 U.S. at 655-56 . 2022Although that sort of latent prejudice "cannot alone carry a Sixth Amendment claim without regard to the other Barker criteria, . . . it is 19 part of the mix of relevant facts." 505 U.S. at 655-56 . | 2 | 1993–2022 |
James Riddick v. Robert Edmiston, Superintendent of Southern State Correctional, and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey
green
2 sentences1994The court in Riddick rejected the reasoning of Mohabir and Carney , observing that the United States Supreme Court had concluded in Patterson that there is no analytical distinction between the validity of a Fifth Amendment waiver and a Sixth Amendment waiver. 894 F.2d at 587-88 . 1991The court in Riddick rejected the reasoning of Mohabir and Carvey , observing that the United States Supreme Court had concluded in Patterson that there is no analytical distinction between the validity of a Fifth Amendment waiver and a Sixth Amendment waiver. 894 F.2d at 587-88 . | 2 | 1991–1994 |
Holland v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1990In his brief to this court, defendant noted that the identical issue was pending before the United States Supreme Court in Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. _ , 107 L. 1990In his brief to this court, defendant noted that the identical issue was pending before the United States Supreme Court in Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. _ , 107 L. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). 2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Murray
green
2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). 2026See, e.g., State v. Trass, 319 Kan. 525 , 526, 556 P.3d 476 (2024); State v. Ford, 316 Kan. 558 , 558-59, 519 P.3d 456 (2022); State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 , 553, 558-63, 422 P.3d 72 (2018); Ford, 302 Kan. at 461 (failure to conduct competency hearing is a due process violation); State v. Murray, 302 Kan. 478, 484-90 , 353 P.3d 1158 (2015). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Libretti v. United States
green
2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 488 (1993), we concluded that even the in rem civil forfeiture authorized by 21 U.S.C. §§ 881 (a)(4) and (a)(7) is punitive in nature, so that forfeiture imposed under those subsections is subject to the limitations of the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. 509 U.S., at 619-622, 113 S. Ct., at 2810-2812." Libretti, 516 U.S. at 39-40 . 8 The Court recognized its prior holding in which it stated "'forfeiture is a substantive charge in the indictment against a defendant'" but clarified that statement "intended only to suggest that a defendant cannot escape an otherwise appropriate 2024Ed. 2d 488 (1993), we concluded that even the in rem civil forfeiture authorized by 21 U.S.C. §§ 881 (a)(4) and (a)(7) is punitive in nature, so that forfeiture imposed under those subsections is subject to the limitations of the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. 509 U.S., at 619-622, 113 S. Ct., at 2810-2812." Libretti, 516 U.S. at 39-40 . 8 The Court recognized its prior holding in which it stated "'forfeiture is a substantive charge in the indictment against a defendant'" but clarified that statement "intended only to suggest that a defendant cannot escape an otherwise appropriate | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Prado
green
2 sentences2024"A conflict of interest (or the lack of one) exists independent of the district court's inquiry, and the lack of an inquiry does not, in itself, work a Sixth Amendment violation." State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251, 1264 , 329 P.3d 473 (2014) (Biles, J., dissenting). 2024"A conflict of interest (or the lack of one) exists independent of the district court's inquiry, and the lack of an inquiry does not, in itself, work a Sixth Amendment violation." State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251, 1264 , 329 P.3d 473 (2014) (Biles, J., dissenting). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Geders v. United States
green
2 sentences2023Blackmon supports his argument by citing to Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 , 96 S. Ct. 1330 , 47 L. 2023Blackmon supports his argument by citing to Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 , 96 S. Ct. 1330 , 47 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Aguilar
green
2 sentences2023Aguilar, 290 Kan. at 512-513 . 2023Aguilar, 290 Kan. at 512-513 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bell v. Cone
green
2 sentences2022Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 695-96 , 122 S. Ct. 1843 , 152 L. 2022Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 695-96 , 122 S. Ct. 1843 , 152 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Calderon
green
2 sentences2020Calderon, 233 Kan. at 95-96 . 2020Calderon, 233 Kan. at 95-96 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2020In particular, he thoroughly briefed the four constitutional speedy trial factors enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. 2020In particular, he thoroughly briefed the four constitutional speedy trial factors enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fuller v. State
green
2 sentences2017It] also [includes] the effective assistance of counsel. [Citations omitted.] We have acknowledged that "[t]he purpose of the effective assistance guarantee 'is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.'"'" Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 486 , 363 P.3d 373 (2015) (quoting State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 174 , 291 P.3d 62 [2012] [quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ]). 2017It] also [includes] the effective assistance of counsel. [Citations omitted.] We have acknowledged that "[t]he purpose of the effective assistance guarantee 'is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.'"'" Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 486 , 363 P.3d 373 (2015) (quoting State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 174 , 291 P.3d 62 [2012] [quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rowland v. State
green
2 sentences2017Bogguess cites Rowland v. State, 289 Kan. 1076 , 219 P.3d 1212 (2009), in support of his claims. 2017Bogguess cites Rowland v. State, 289 Kan. 1076 , 219 P.3d 1212 (2009), in support of his claims. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. DeAnda neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Lloyd green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Astorga green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Hilt green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Michigan v. Jackson red | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Montejo v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Ingram green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Sullivan v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Blakely v. Washington green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Washington v. Recuenco green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Harned green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Alabama v. Shelton green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Michigan v. Harvey green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| United States v. Langer green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Kuhlmann v. Wilson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| United States v. Henry green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Hoeck green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| United States v. George Gordon Liddy, A/K/A George F. Leonard green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Coleman green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Jenkins green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| MacKey v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Taylor v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.
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.