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.
5 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 |
|---|---|---|
Albury v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Counsel indicated that portions of the statement could be construed as coercive, but she wished to use those portions to explain damaging statements 8 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 9 Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1988)). 7 Benson made later at the police station. 2022Counsel indicated that portions of the statement could be construed as coercive, but she wished to use those portions to explain damaging statements 8 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 9 Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1988)). 7 Benson made later at the police station. | 1 | 2 |
Hill v. Lockhartgreen1 sentence2022Counsel indicated that portions of the statement could be construed as coercive, but she wished to use those portions to explain damaging statements 8 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 9 Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1988)). 7 Benson made later at the police station. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2022Counsel indicated that portions of the statement could be construed as coercive, but she wished to use those portions to explain damaging statements 8 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 9 Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1988)). 7 Benson made later at the police station. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2022He also asserted that there were violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 4 for abuse of discretion.2 We review legal or constitutional questions, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo.3 The Court considers the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive issues.4 (12) The Superior Court did not err in rejecting Benson’s claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty by the State’s threats to prosecute his son and girlfriend. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Blueford v. Arkansas
green
1 sentence2020Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Blueford v. Arkansas,25 the Superior Court concluded that retrial did not violate double jeopardy principles. 25 566 U.S. 599 (2012). 16 (34) We review claims alleging an infringement of a constitutionally protected right, including the right not to be subjected to double jeopardy, de novo.26 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy.” 27 “Under double jeopardy principles, an acquittal on the merits by the sole decisionmaker in the proceeding is fin | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Somerville v. State
green
1 sentence2019Freud Commissioner AMEF/dsc oc: Prothonotary °° Sommerville 703 A.2d at 632 . 11 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Benson v. State
green
1 sentence2017This appeal followed. 1 Trial Tr., April 16, 2013, at 20. 2 Benson v. State, 105 A.3d 979 (Del. 2014). 3 (6) Although Benson raised several issues in the motion he filed in the Superior Court, he raises only one issue in his opening brief on appeal.3 He contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for arguing during closing that the jury should consider lesser-included offenses. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.