Search for: ""Strickland v. Washington" OR "466 U.S. 668"" Results 41 - 60 of 156
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2015, 3:27 pm by Jon Sands
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).As murders go, these were gruesome ones -- the 20-year-old petitioner and his 16-year-old codefendant carjacked a 63-year-old woman and her granddaughter, stabbed the woman 33 times, drove 40 miles to bury the body, slit the girl's throat to eliminate a witness to the crime, and when the girl did not appear to be dead, smashed her head with heavy rocks. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:46 am
Washington (466 U.S. 668); "The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appealed from the habeas court’s judgment, claiming that the habeas court, in determining that the prejudice prong of the Strickland test had been satisfied, failed to apply the correct legal standard and failed to properly weigh the totality of the evidence presented at the petitioner’s habeas and criminal trials. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 4:11 pm by Jon Sands
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), isn't clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 9:20 am by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), prong, appellate courts allow a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 5:31 am
Washington466 U.S. 668 (1984)] . . . [read post]
2 May 2014, 12:36 pm by MBettman
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.) [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 2:01 pm by MBettman
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.) [read post]
15 May 2013, 9:56 am by admin
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), finds no ineffectiveness by defense attorneys who fall asleep during the cross-examination of their client (Muniz v. [read post]