Legal Opinion

Mickens v. Taylor

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 27, 2002No. 00-9285PublishedCited by 1,204 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scalia

The question presented in this case is what a defendant must show in order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it knew or reasonably should have known.

I

In 1993, a Virginia jury convicted petitioner Mickens of the premeditated murder of Timothy Hall during or following the commission of an attempted forcible sodomy. Finding the murder outrageously and wantonly vile, it sentenced petitioner to death. In June 1998, Mickens filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (1994 ed.…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by1,204 opinions

  1. Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Burt v. TitlowSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. United States v. Gonzalez-LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. People v. DoolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Whorton v. BocktingSupreme Court of the United States · 2007

1,199 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