Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 392 N.W.2d 224.
-
State v. Barnes
713 N.W.2d 325
Minn. 2006
“[Tjhere is a strong presumption that a counsels’ performance falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” ().
- White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
- White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
- State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
- State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
- State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
-
State v. Martin
695 N.W.2d 578
Minn. 2005
A reasonable probability is “ ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct.
- Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
- Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
- State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
- State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
- State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
- Jones v. State 671 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2003
- Jones v. State 671 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2003
- State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
- State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
- State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
- Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
- Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
- Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
- Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
- State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
- State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
- State v. Gustafson 610 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2000
-
State v. Gustafson
610 N.W.2d 314
Minn. 2000
“There is a strong presumption that a counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of ‘reasonable professional assistance.’ ”
- State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
- State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
- Jihad v. State 594 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1999
-
Jihad v. State
594 N.W.2d 522
Minn. 1999
We have previously stated that we give particular deference to decisions of counsel regarding trial strategy and that questions of "[w]hich witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions that lie within the proper discretion of the trial counsel.”
- State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
- State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
- State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
- State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
- State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
- State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
-
State v. Windish
590 N.W.2d 311
Minn. 1999
-20 (Minn.1989) (stating that good cause does not include calendar congestion unless exceptional circumstances exist).
- State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
- State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
-
State v. Brocks
587 N.W.2d 37
Minn. 1998
There is a strong presumption that a counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of “reasonable professional assistance.”
- State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
- State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
- Wilson v. State 582 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1998
- Wilson v. State 582 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1998
- State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
- State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
- State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1998
-
State v. Patterson
577 N.W.2d 494
Minn. 1998
that the government knows the truth.” In State v. Jones, a ease in which the prosecutor was permitted to inform the jury of plea agreements worked out with two accomplices in exchange for their truthful testimony, this court stated “[w]e have never held that plea negotiations granting favorable treatment to prosecution witnesses in return for truthful testimony are per se unconstitutional * ⅜ *.” (emphasis in original).
- State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997