56 Cited authorities

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003) Cited 48,743 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination
Harrington v. Richter
562 U.S. 86 (2011) Cited 26,563 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 159,572 times 179 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) Cited 37,929 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,488 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Coleman v. Thompson
501 U.S. 722 (1991) Cited 26,357 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"
Schlup v. Delo
513 U.S. 298 (1995) Cited 18,128 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the actual innocence standard requires a petitioner "to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice" under Strickland
Smith v. Robbins
528 U.S. 259 (2000) Cited 8,593 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"
Brecht v. Abrahamson
507 U.S. 619 (1993) Cited 11,869 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a court has "never squarely addressed the issue, and ha at most assumed" something in a prior decision, it is "free to address the issue on the merits"
Murray v. Carrier
477 U.S. 478 (1986) Cited 16,528 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel may provide cause for a procedural default
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 205,399 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Johnson v. Philip D. Heath, Superintendent

56 Cited authorities

Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination

Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

Holding that the actual innocence standard requires a petitioner "to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice" under Strickland

Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"

Holding that when a court has "never squarely addressed the issue, and ha at most assumed" something in a prior decision, it is "free to address the issue on the merits"

Holding that constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel may provide cause for a procedural default

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"