Search for: "Strickland v. State"
Results 201 - 220
of 913
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2011, 9:41 pm
State, 2011 Ga. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 8:17 pm
See State v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 7:01 am
In Campos v. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 8:53 am
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 8 cases this morning. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 7:44 pm
Frye (No. 10-444), and leave Lafler v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 12:17 pm
Daire v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:24 pm
They recognized that the test for what's considered ineffective assistance of counsel is not new (Strickland v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 11:23 am
Defense counsel’s performance was deficient in the punishment phase of a capital murder trial because counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the mitigation case as well as into the State’s aggravation case Andrus v. [read post]
2 Apr 2017, 9:22 am
New Hampshire State Prison, 2017 U.S. [read post]
5 Aug 2007, 3:35 pm
See Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 476, 478; United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 5:16 am
” Strickland v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:00 pm
Wednesday, in Lafler v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 7:38 pm
That’s the meat of the holding from Padilla v. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 11:28 am
In Siehl v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 11:19 am
First, Strickland v. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 7:04 am
The Court denied relief in Strickland, but then in a couple of more recent cases (Wiggins v. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 10:32 am
The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) holding that the warrant to search the defendant's cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, see People v Hughes, 506 Mich 512, 538 (2020); (2) failing to sever any valid portions of the search warrant from any invalid portions, see People v Keller, 479 Mich 467, 479 (2007); (3) holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, see People v… [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 10:18 am
” Strickland v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 4:10 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 2:21 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
