Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Arthur

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 19, 2005Published

1DissentJustice Albin

The most seasoned trial attorney cannot do justice to his client’s cause if he does not prepare for trial. If he fails to conduct an investigation, or interview and take statements from critical witnesses, or get those witnesses on the stand, then the attorney’s courtroom performance, however skillfully displayed, is but an illusion of adequate representation. Courtroom tactical decisions made by an attorney who has not engaged in minimal trial preparation often are distorted, rushed, wrongheaded — and at the expense of the client.

Defendant Michael Arthur likely sits in prison convicted of…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. State v. FritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987

19 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