Search for: "Strickland v. Washington"
Results 1 - 20
of 548
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2018, 9:08 am
Washington focusing, in particular, on some interesting things the Supreme Court had to say about Strickland's prejudice requirement last term in Weaver v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 5:10 pm
Here is the abstract: Even the Justices considering Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 4:34 am
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's opinion in Strickland v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Washington. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
23 Jul 2011, 9:58 am
As you recall, Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 9:55 pm
The Supreme Court laid out the basic test in 1984 in a case called Strickland v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 5:57 am
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's opinion in Strickland v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
Title: Strickland v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 8:11 am
Washington. [read post]
16 Feb 2023, 8:49 am
Washington) [read post]
6 May 2014, 7:11 pm
McNeal 13-963 Issue: Whether, contrary to Strickland v. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 6:30 am
Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice O’Connor in Strickland v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 1:59 pm
Strickland (07-689). [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 4:05 pm
The majority held that despite the language in the New York Court of Appeals decision,People v Benevento (91 N.Y.2d 708, 714 [1998]), that “whether defendant would have been acquitted of the charges but for counsel’s errors isrelevant, but not dispositive" under the Baldi standard such a finding is, in fact dispositive under People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137 [1981]), since "it is hard to envision a scenario where an error that meets the prejudice prong of… [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 8:00 pm
Kulbicki 14-848 Issue: Whether an appellate court violates the core principles of Strickland v. [read post]
17 Nov 2019, 4:24 am
For years, experts have blamed Strickland v. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 1:12 pm
Washington v. [read post]