Legal Opinion
Maryland v. Kulbicki
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided October 5, 2015No. 14-848PublishedCited by 119 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*2 PER CURIAM.
A criminal defendant "shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of *3 Counsel for his defence." U.S. Const., Amdt. 6. We have held that this right requires effective counsel in both state and federal prosecutions, even if the defendant is unable to afford counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 344, 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). Counsel is unconstitutionally in effective if his performance is both deficient, meaning his errors are "so serious" that he no longer functions as "counsel," and prejudicial, meaning his errors deprive the defendant of a fair trial.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Lockhart v. FretwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Rompilla v. BeardSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by119 opinions
- Murphy v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- Michael Miller v. Dushan ZateckyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
- United States v. Sylvan AbneyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2016
- In re Pers. Restraint of AliWashington Supreme Court · 2020
- Jean Robert Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025
114 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.