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 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii 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. Kidogreen2 sentences2017The ICA noted that “some federal and state appellate courts, presented with averments of Brooks error, have declined to find constitutional error” in the following three categories of cases: (1) where “the trial court required that the defendant testify before only some of his witnesses”; (2) where “the defendant’s decision whether to testify congealed before the trial court’s action”; and (3) where “the defendant himself created the exigency for taking his testimony first.” Id. at 376 , 76 P.3d at 619 . 2017The ICA noted that “some federal and state appellate courts, presented with averments of Brooks error, have declined to find constitutional error” in the following three categories of cases: (1) where “the trial court required that the defendant testify before only some of his witnesses”; (2) where “the defendant’s decision whether to testify congealed before the trial court’s action”; and (3) where “the defendant himself created the exigency for taking his testimony first.” Id. at 376 , 76 P.3d at 619 . | 2 | 3 |
Brooks v. Tennesseegreen2 sentences2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). 2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Mark Edwin Cookgreen1 sentence2017See also United States v. Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1189 (9th Cir. 1979) (Kennedy, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) ("At the outset of the trial, a defendant in good faith may intend to testify, but it may be quite reasonable for him to change his mind after considering the course taken by the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salegreen2 sentences2017However, the ICA determined that it “need not address whether the circuit court’s actions amounted to Brooks error” because it ”conclude[d] that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 13 The ICA reasoned that the de *216 fendant “had already stated his decision to testify on the record” before the circuit court required him to testify first and the defendant “turned out to be the only witness for the defense.” Id. at 397-98, 133 P.3d at 826-27. ii. 2017However, the ICA determined that it “need not address whether the circuit court’s actions amounted to Brooks error” because it ”conclude[d] that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 13 The ICA reasoned that the de *216 fendant “had already stated his decision to testify on the record” before the circuit court required him to testify first and the defendant “turned out to be the only witness for the defense.” Id. at 397-98, 133 P.3d at 826-27. ii. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2006United States v. Leon, 679 F.2d 534, 538 (5th Cir.1982); State v. Amos, 262 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Minn.1978); State v. Turner, 252 Conn. 714 , 751 A.2d 372, 383-84 (2000). 2006United States v. Leon, 679 F.2d 534, 538 (5th Cir.1982); State v. Amos, 262 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Minn.1978); State v. Turner, 252 Conn. 714 , 751 A.2d 372, 383-84 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ronald D. Leon and Joe Dee Hicksgreen1 sentence2006United States v. Leon, 679 F.2d 534, 538 (5th Cir.1982); State v. Amos, 262 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Minn.1978); State v. Turner, 252 Conn. 714 , 751 A.2d 372, 383-84 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Shakim Harris v. Wayne Barkley, Superintendent, Riverview Correctional Facilitygreen1 sentence2006E.g., Harris v. Barkley, 202 F.3d 169, 173 (2d Cir.2000) (“Brooks does not constitute a general prohibition against a trial judge’s regulation of the order of trial in a way that may affect the timing of a defendant’s testimony.”); see Kido, 102 Hawai'i at 376 , 76 P.3d at 619 (citing cases from other jurisdictions in which courts have distinguished Brooks and declined to find Brooks error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Amosgreen1 sentence2006United States v. Leon, 679 F.2d 534, 538 (5th Cir.1982); State v. Amos, 262 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Minn.1978); State v. Turner, 252 Conn. 714 , 751 A.2d 372, 383-84 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bobby Gene Rantzgreen1 sentence2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). | 1 | 1 |
Cruz-Padillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). 2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). | 1 | 1 |
Agsalud v. Leegreen2 sentences1992See, *577 e.g., Shea v. City and County of Honolulu, 67 Haw. 499, 507 , 692 P.2d 1158, 1165 (1985); Agsalud v. Lee, 66 Haw. 425, 430 , 664 P.2d 734, 738 (1983). 1992See, *577 e.g., Shea v. City and County of Honolulu, 67 Haw. 499, 507 , 692 P.2d 1158, 1165 (1985); Agsalud v. Lee, 66 Haw. 425, 430 , 664 P.2d 734, 738 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Shea v. City and County of Honolulugreen2 sentences1992See, *577 e.g., Shea v. City and County of Honolulu, 67 Haw. 499, 507 , 692 P.2d 1158, 1165 (1985); Agsalud v. Lee, 66 Haw. 425, 430 , 664 P.2d 734, 738 (1983). 1992See, *577 e.g., Shea v. City and County of Honolulu, 67 Haw. 499, 507 , 692 P.2d 1158, 1165 (1985); Agsalud v. Lee, 66 Haw. 425, 430 , 664 P.2d 734, 738 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DFS Group L.P. v. Paiea Properties
green
2 sentences2017Sale, 110 Hawai'i at 397 , 133 P.3d at 826 . 2017Sale, 110 Hawai'i at 397 , 133 P.3d at 826 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Frank Loher v. Todd Thomas
green
2 sentences2017Id Although the Ninth Circuit concluded that the ICA’s “rejection of the Brooks claim in a post-conviction appeal, based on a post-conviction record, did not involve an objectively unreasonable application of Brooks,” this conclusion “simply does not answer whether a ‘reasonable probability exists’ that Loher would have prevailed in his direct appeal, based on the trial record, if his counsel had raised a Brooks claim.” Id. at 1120-21 . 2017Id Although the Ninth Circuit concluded that the ICA’s “rejection of the Brooks claim in a post-conviction appeal, based on a post-conviction record, did not involve an objectively unreasonable application of Brooks,” this conclusion “simply does not answer whether a ‘reasonable probability exists’ that Loher would have prevailed in his direct appeal, based on the trial record, if his counsel had raised a Brooks claim.” Id. at 1120-21 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Loher v. State
green
2 sentences2017Although the ICA in Loher III addressed only whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Brooks forced testimony issue on direct appeal, it observed in a footnote that "in Kido, [the ICA] identified various situations where Brooks error would not be found.” 118 Hawai'i at 533 n.6, *216 193 P.3d at 449 n.6. 2017Although the ICA in Loher III addressed only whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Brooks forced testimony issue on direct appeal, it observed in a footnote that "in Kido, [the ICA] identified various situations where Brooks error would not be found.” 118 Hawai'i at 533 n.6, *216 193 P.3d at 449 n.6. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Moore v. United States
green
1 sentence2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Powell v. United States
green
1 sentence2003See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 610-12 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ; United States v. Rantz, 862 F.2d 808, 811-12 (10th Cir.1988) (finding Brooks error because the defendant was required to testify “before any other defense testimony”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 , 109 S.Ct. 1554 , 103 L.Ed.2d 857 (1989); Cruz-Padillo v. State, 262 Ga. 629 , 422 S.E.2d 849, 851 (1992) (citing Brooks and holding that “the trial court violated [the defendant’s] federal and state constitutional rights to remain silent and to due process by requiring him to testify before any of the other defense witnesses or not at all”). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.