Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Cain

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided March 19, 2004No. 03-0212/ARPublished

1DissentCrawford, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s creation of a per se rule of ineffectiveness that is contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 172-73, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002) (noting that because there is no rule of per se ineffectiveness, an appellant must demonstrate that “conflict significantly affected counsel’s performance”). But cf. Nixon v. Florida, 857 So.2d 172 (Fla.2003)(defendant’s acquiescence in defense counsel’s strategy which was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, regardless of its wisdom, was held to be per se ineffectiveness),…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Mickens v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. United States v. DuBayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
  5. United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API