Cited by

(“To be reasonably effective, it is not required that representation by counsel obtain a favorable result .

(considering defense counsel’s opening statement as it relates to prosecutor’s opening statement); rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

(stating that “the determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the [district] court”).

(reasoning that a decision not to request a cautionary instruction about the possibility of the defendant appearing in handcuffs could have been a tactical decision to avoid drawing attention to that fact).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984); (applying Strickland to Minnesota courts).

(indicating that effective assistance of counsel does not require counsel to “obtain a favorable result”).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); (applying Strickland).

-92 (Minn. 1984); review denied (Minn. July 22, 1987).

(recognizing that collective knowledge of entire police force may be used to establish probable cause).

(holding that defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial where the trial court took reasonable steps to minimize the jury’s view of defendant in handcuffs).

2 Although we do impute knowledge amongst police officers who are from the same force or are involved in the same investigation in certain contexts, see, (permitting a probable cause finding to be based on the “collective knowledge” of the police department), Fox’s argument would require us to impute knowledge among personnel from organizationally distinct entities— specifically the knowledge of jail staff from Ramsey County with investigators from th

(holding that the defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial where “the trial court took reasonable steps to minimize defendant’s exposure in handcuffs to the jury’s view but could not eliminate all risk.”).

2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)

When defense counsel and defendant disagree on significant matters of tactics or strategy, we have suggested that a record should be made by "means which best serves to protect both the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship and the safeguards present in the criminal system.” -95 (Minn.1984).

(concluding that an attorney's decision not to focus on intoxication as a defense and failure to request an intoxication jury instruction was a matter of trial strategy); (stating that an attorney's decision not to request a cautionary instruction "regarding the possibility of defendant's appearing in handcuffs in view of the jurors" was a tactical decision that probably reflected the attorney's attempt to avoid calling further attention to the defendant's restraints).

2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), : “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.

Cf. Doppler, d at 635 (concluding that an attorney’s decision not to focus on intoxication as a defense and failure to request an intoxication jury instruction was a matter of trial strategy); (stating that an attorney’s decision not to request a cautionary instruction “regarding the possibility of defendant’s appearing in handcuffs in view of the jurors” was a tactical decision that probably reflected the attorney’s attempt to avoid calling further attention to the defendant’s restraints).

2317, 2339 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); (fact that informant’s reliability is unknown is not fatal to determination of probable cause if corroborating evidence exists).

(citing United States v. McGlynn, 671 F.2d 1140, 1143 (8th Cir.1982)).

“To be reasonably effective, it is not required that representation by counsel obtain a favorable result, but that counsel provide for the accused the ‘guiding hand’ the Sixth Amendment envisions in subjecting the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.”

Examples include: (pri- or crime used to prove identity was 10 years old but remarkably similar to charged offense; both were pharmacy robberies in which the robbers ordered the victims to lie on the floor, demanded “Class A drugs” and ordered the victims “not to push the button”)

Examples include: (prior crime used to prove identity was ten years old but remarkably similar to charged offense; both were pharmacy robberies in which the robbers ordered the victims to he 'on the floor, demanded “Class A drugs” and ordered the victims “not to push the button”); (

(attorney may not assert personal opinion).