Question: Which case occured first, Strickland v. Washington or Barron v. Baltimore?

full_context: Document 1: Slaughter-House Cases: The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) , was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted. It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. However, federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship. In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights.
Document 2: Strickland v. Sony: Strickland v. Sony was a court case whose central focus was on whether violent video games played a role in Devin Moore's first-degree murder/shooting of three people in a police station. In August 2005, former attorney Jack Thompson filed the lawsuit against Sony.
Document 3: Strickland v. Washington: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
Document 4: Barron v. Baltimore: Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments.
Document 5: Dusky v. United States: Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
Document 6: Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.
Document 7: Everson v. Board of Education: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges. This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in "Everson" marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.
Document 8: Luis v. United States: Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
Document 9: Escobedo v. Illinois: Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in "Gideon v. Wainwright", 372 U.S. 335 (1963) that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial.
Document 10: Standby counsel: Standby counsel or advisory counsel refers to a lawyer who assists a client who has invoked his right to self-representation. If the client becomes disruptive or otherwise unable to conduct his own defense, the judge may order the standby counsel to take over the defense. Standby counsel also remains available during the trial for consultation. However, standby counsel must not interfere with the client's self-representation. Jack Kevorkian had standby counsel in his fifth trial.
Document 11: Betts v. Brady: Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state. It was famously overruled by "Gideon v. Wainwright".
Document 12: United States v. Barker: United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. 395 (1817), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court upholding the common law tradition that private citizens may not demand costs from the federal government. The case involved a motion for costs filed against the United States Government and resolved the previously unanswered question of whether courts could award costs against the United States federal government. The Court's opinion read, in its entirety, "[t]he United States never pay costs." Jurists have remarked that Chief Justice John Marshall's six-word opinion is one of the shortest Supreme Court cases ever written.
Document 13: Corfield v. Coryell: Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed. Cas. 546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823) is a landmark 1823 federal circuit court case decided by Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In it, he upheld a New Jersey regulation forbidding non-residents from gathering oysters and clams against a challenge that New Jersey's law violated the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and that the New Jersey law regulated interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. The case is available in Thayer's Cases on Constitutional Law, Part 2
Document 14: Massiah v. United States: Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
Document 15: McCulloch v. Maryland: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.
ground_truth: Barron v. Baltimore