Skip to main content

James v. State

Citations

  • 763 S.W.2d 776
  • 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 16
  • 1989 WL 4306

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “potential, speculative conflicts of interest” may not be “elevated to the position of actual, significant conflicts”
  • “potential, speculative conflicts of interest” may not be “elevated to the position of actual, significant conflicts”
  • “potential, speculative conflicts of interest” may not be “elevated to the position of actual, significant conflicts”
  • no actual conflict of interest where counsel consistently maintains each codefendant’s alibi defense
  • no conflict of interest existed where each defendant’s alibi was distinct, neither defendant attempted to incriminate the other, and the record did not show that either defendant would have pursued a defense in which he blamed the other
  • “In each of these cases the potential for conflict inherent in multiple representation became an actual conflict due to the inculpatory or exculpatory nature of testimony or the strategy adopted by defense counsel in the particular case. That is not reflected in the case before us today.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McCormick, Clinton, Teague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

81 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.