Brief filed: 07/14/2010
Harrington v. Richter
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 09-587
Decision below 578 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2009).
AEDPA deference to a state court’s summary disposition does not apply in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) authorizes deferential treatment only after that decision has been subjected to the analyses prescribed in (d)(1) and (d)(2). Where the state court’s decision fails to provide the information necessary to facilitate those analyses, however, the process Congress prescribed cannot be carried out. Held: Section 2254(d) applies to respondent Richter’s habeas petition, even though the state court’s order was unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the court’s reasoning.
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
John H. Blume and Keir M. Weyble, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY.