Is there any case law where counsel acted within the professional range of competence in making tactical decisions?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lindquist, 2d Crim. No. B285182 (Cal. App. 2018):
Moreover, we accord great deference to counsel's tactical decisions and presume that counsel acted within the professional range of competence. (People v. Mickel, supra, 2 Cal.5th 181, 198.)
The judgment is affirmed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can counsel argue that counsel's tactical decisions not to object to a reference to gun possession were tactical considerations? (California, United States of America)
Does defendant have overcome the strong presumption that defense counsel's conduct fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether counsel acted in a tactical or tactical manner in opposing the prosecution's closing argument? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where a trial counsel's argument to the jury that a lack of tactical purpose or satisfactory explanation for defense counsel's omission was a tactical error? (California, United States of America)
Does appellant have to prove that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to preserve or preserve the issue of limiting the right of his mother to make educational decisions for him? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of sentencing counsel's tactical decision to refrain from making a sentencing objection? (California, United States of America)
Can counsel make a tactical decision not to object to an argument that the jury would not be reasonably likely to misunderstand? (California, United States of America)
Does Section 170.6, subdivision (2) of the Peremptory Challenge Act require counsel to disclose the identity of the assigned judge to counsel before counsel for the moving party learns that the assigning judge has been identified? (California, United States of America)
If counsel discovered that the burglary had been reduced to a misdemeanor, and lodged an objection below, would counsel have discovered that counsel had discovered that Counsel had discovered it was a misdemeanor? (California, United States of America)
Is a defense counsel not required to make a frivolous motion or to indulge in idle acts to appear competent? (California, United States of America)
