From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Troedel v. Dugger

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 4, 1987
828 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1987)

Summary

finding counsel ineffective in failing to investigate the background of a codefendant where defense theory is that codefendant, who had dominated and coerced defendant, was responsible for the murders

Summary of this case from Cooper v. Dugger

Opinion

No. 86-5860.

September 4, 1987.

Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Miami, Fla., Peggy A. Quince, Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellant, cross-appellee.

Capital Collateral Representative, Mark Evan Olive, Tallahassee, Fla., Steven H. Malone, Sp. Appointed Asst. Representative, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, W. Palm Beach, Fla., for petitioner-appellee, cross-appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before FAY, ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.


The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in its Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of September 23, 1986. 667 F. Supp. 1456.


Summaries of

Troedel v. Dugger

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 4, 1987
828 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1987)

finding counsel ineffective in failing to investigate the background of a codefendant where defense theory is that codefendant, who had dominated and coerced defendant, was responsible for the murders

Summary of this case from Cooper v. Dugger

adopting explicitly district court order

Summary of this case from Tejada v. Dugger
Case details for

Troedel v. Dugger

Case Details

Full title:DAVID W. TROEDEL, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT, v. RICHARD DUGGER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Sep 4, 1987

Citations

828 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

Bowers v. State

When we return to Strickland's prejudice prong, we find that many decisions apply the Supreme Court's…

U.S. v. Mitchell

resentation. . . ."). See, e.g., Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317, 329-30 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding counsel's…