Search for: "Strickland v. State"
Results 381 - 400
of 868
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2012, 6:46 am
State v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 6:25 pm
The Court emphasized the high level of deference that federal habeas courts must show to state-court decisions on the merits, particularly state-court decisions rejecting Jackson v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 10:42 am
"The case is Elfgeeh v. [read post]
24 Jun 2012, 11:32 am
This case was Strickland v. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 9:15 am
Matthews v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 5:36 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 8:46 am
The second is where appointed counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 8:46 am
The second is where appointed counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 11:56 am
However, on March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court filed its decision in Padilla v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 10:55 am
State. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 10:55 am
State. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:56 am
” United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:56 am
” United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm
§ 2254(e)(1)’s command that an underlying state-court fact determination must be presumed correct; (2) whether the Sixth Circuit violated Section 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on a purportedly unreasonable application of state law; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit violated § 2254(d)(1) by asserting its own prejudice standard – that a defendant “must only show that he had a substantial defense” – rather than the standard… [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 7:53 pm
Evans v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 12:43 pm
United States, 11-9711, Jackson v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 5:31 pm
CAAF’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 9:40 am
§ 2254(e)(1)’s command that an underlying state-court fact determination must be presumed correct; (2) whether the Sixth Circuit violated Section 2254(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) by granting habeas relief on a purportedly unreasonable application of state law; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit violated AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) by asserting its own prejudice standard – that a defendant “must only show that he had a… [read post]
