Search for: "Strickland v. Washington" Results 201 - 220 of 551
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2015, 2:50 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  No factual identity is required to make a claim under Strickland. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 12:05 pm by John Elwood
Kulbicki 14-848Issue: Whether an appellate court violates the core principles of Strickland v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:43 am by Amy Howe
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]
26 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm by John Elwood
It asks whether an appellate court violates Strickland v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
Kulbicki 14-848 Issue: Whether an appellate court violates the core principles of Strickland v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 3:27 pm by Jon Sands
United States, No. 11-99003 (Silverman with Wardlaw; partial dissent by Reinhardt)--- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a § 2255 post-conviction motion filed by a federal death-row prisoner, holding that defense counsels' guilt- and penalty-phase strategies were the product of professionally reasonable investigations under Strickland v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 12:13 pm by John Elwood
The petition asks if an appellate court violates Strickland v. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 7:10 am
That dismissal was based on an unreasonable application of Strickland v. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 6:10 am by Matt Kaiser
That dismissal was based on an unreasonable application of Strickland v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:46 am
Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; certification; Strickland v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 11:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Washington and subsequent decisions of this Court applying Strickland's prejudice standard. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 8:38 am by Kent Scheidegger
Washington or whether this is one of that rare breed of cases exempt from that requirement under United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 9:55 am by John Elwood
Cronic to cover counsel’s brief absence from trial was an “extreme malfunction” entitling the petitioner to habeas relief; and (2) whether the Michigan courts reasonably determined that Donald had not shown Strickland v. [read post]