Search for: "Strickland"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 2,261
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jun 2009, 3:52 am
So we go to oral argument, and it’s clear that the entire case rests on the second prong of the Strickland standard for IAC claims: whether the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure, i.e., whether counsel’s failure undermines the confidence in the verdict. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 3:56 am
An extension of the Strickland standard into cases of misadvice, rather than derelict trial performance, would be a big step, and it’s not clear that the Court’s willing to take it. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 12:59 pm
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s decision — invalidating Anthony Hines’ decades-old murder conviction and death sentence on the ground that a state court unreasonably applied Strickland v. [read post]
3 Jun 2007, 5:58 am
Strickland Southern District of Ohio at ColumbusPetition for rehearing en banc denied. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 8:47 am
This has been widely reviewed, see for example, the On Line Journalism Blog US Law and Media News A couple of weeks ago we reported the an interesting controversy in the US after the Cleveland Plain Dealer revealed the fact that an anonymous poster on its website had the same e-mail address as Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold. [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 substantial… [read post]
20 May 2022, 6:39 am
Texas, which were amply supported by the habeas and trial records, and whether the Texas court disregarded the Supreme Court’s express guidance for conducting a prejudice analysis pursuant to Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 8:21 am
In Strickland v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:15 am
Shaw 13-897Issue: Whether, in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a state appellate court’s holding that an omitted state law issue ultimately lacked merit precludes a federal habeas court from later finding either deficient performance or prejudice relating to that omission under the standards of Strickland v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 4:48 am
Strickland in Ohio has granted a commutation to Sidney Cornwell, which means, save for the Baze v. [read post]
2 Oct 2006, 9:31 am
Writing for the panel, Judge Ambro concluded that the state courts' ruling that trial counsel's performance was adequate was an objectively unreasonable application of Strickland. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 6:50 am
Strickland, 87 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1996). [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:43 am
Kulbicki, a case on last week’s Conference at which the Court has been asked to review whether a court violates Strickland v. [read post]
2 Mar 2014, 4:16 pm
The district court found that the State court’s view of the facts, and its application of the two-part ineffective assistance test set forth in Strickland v. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 9:48 am
Texas, which were amply supported by the habeas and trial records, and whether the Texas court disregarded the Supreme Court’s express guidance for conducting a prejudice analysis pursuant to Strickland v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 3:43 am
Most IAC claims revolve around the second prong of the Strickland test, whether the defendant has been prejudiced by counsel’s failure, but here it’s the first prong that creates the problem: is counsel’s performance deficient because he fails to file a sentencing memorandum? [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 9:00 pm
See Strickland v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 12:43 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 in Strickland v. [read post]
26 Dec 2006, 3:11 pm
Senate * Ted Strickland for Governor * Sherrod Brown for U.S. [read post]
15 May 2012, 8:45 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 substantial… [read post]
