Cuyler v. Sullivan
- Decided
- May 12, 1980
- Docket
- 78-1832
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,389 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that trial court has obligation to inquire into conflict of interest the court knows or reasonably should know exists — Scott C. Ciak v. United States (1995)
- holding that a showing of Strickland-type prejudice is not required where a defendant demonstrates an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance — United States v. Ramon-Rodriguez (2007)
- holding that the Sixth Amendment is violated where the attorney labored, under an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance — Robert Allen Jennings v. James Purkett, Superintendent (1993)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*337] Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a state prisoner may obtain a federal writ of habeas corpus by showing that his retained defense counsel represented potentially conflicting interests.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.