Search for: "Strickland v. State" Results 421 - 440 of 918
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 May 2012, 11:06 am by Dan Markel
Hessick (Arizona State University) The Law and Paraphilias *Melissa Hamilton (University of South Carolina) Child Pornography 2.0 *Carissa B. [read post]
29 May 2012, 9:40 am by Matthew Bush
§ 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]
24 May 2012, 12:14 am by zshapiro
Under the classic Supreme Court incompetence of counsel case, Strickland v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 4:00 pm by John Elwood
Next up is yet another state-on-top habeas case, Howes v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 7:49 pm by appealattorneylaw
This is a follow up to my last post, where I discussed an opinion issued by the United States Supreme Court, Missouri v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 5:16 pm
Even if a defendant demonstrates constitutionally deficient representation under Padilla, a petitioner must still prove prejudice under Strickland v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 1:37 pm by Michael M. O'Hear
So, the question in Chaidez seems to boil down to whether Padilla announced a new rule or merely applied the basic ineffective assistance test of Strickland v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 11:57 pm
To analyze whether the ineffective assistance rises to a Sixth Amendment violation, courts must follow a two-part test set out in Strickland v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 7:54 am by Matthew Bush
ColsonDocket: 11-981Issue(s): Whether the prejudice arising from multiple errors committed by defense counsel should be considered cumulatively for purposes of deciding whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland v. [read post]