Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gustafson v. State, 477 N.W.2d 709.

47 citing documents.

Marcus Anthony Baker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“It is within trial counsel’s discretion to forgo investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“It is within trial counsel’s discretion to forego investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom 6 N.W.3d 145 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom 6 N.W.3d 145 Minn. 2024
When a defendant shows that a conflict of interest “actually affected the adequacy of his representation,” he “need not demonstrate prejudice in order to gain relief.” (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349–50 (1980)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy[,]” and “[i]t is within trial counsel’s discretion to forgo investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[U]ntil a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“It is within trial counsel’s discretion to forgo investiga tion of leads not reason ably likely to produce favorable evidence.” Gustafson v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“It is within trial counsel’s discretion to forgo investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence.”
Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“It is within trial counsel’s discretion to forgo investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence.”
A16-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“It is within trial counsel’ s discretion to forgo investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence.”
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
“[U]ntil a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A defendant who shows that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation need not demonstrate prejudice in order to gain relief.” (quoting Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 349-50, 100 S. Ct. 1709 at 1719).
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
(defense counsel is not required to pursue leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence); Gates, d at 562-63 (defense counsel is not required to interview all individuals named in the police report).
Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
We have held that “until a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate *718 for his claim of ineffective assistance.” (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 , 100 S.Ct.
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
Russell v. State 562 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1997
Russell v. State 562 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1997
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995
Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995
State v. Ecker 524 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1994
State v. Ecker 524 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1994
Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(trial counsel has discretion “to forego investigation of leads not reasonably likely to produce favorable evidence”).
Miles v. State 512 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Miles v. State 512 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Rainer 502 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
State v. Rainer 502 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
Scruggs v. State 484 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1992
Scruggs v. State 484 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1992