14 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,532 times 176 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"
McCleskey v. Zant
499 U.S. 467 (1991) Cited 5,307 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "colorable showing of factual innocence" satisfies the "ends of justice" requirement
United States v. Cronic
466 U.S. 648 (1984) Cited 7,353 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,557 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
McMann v. Richardson
397 U.S. 759 (1970) Cited 7,402 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that even a possible misjudgment about admissibility of evidence is not ineffective assistance.
Burger v. Kemp
483 U.S. 776 (1987) Cited 2,385 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that limited mitigation investigation was reasonable when counsel interviewed all witnesses brought to his attention, and reasonably determined that focusing on his client's personal history would be detrimental
Townsend v. Sain
372 U.S. 293 (1963) Cited 4,420 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing where " there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence"
Chandler v. U.S.
218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 2,513 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ineffectiveness prong of Strickland is a high bar, requiring a showing that “no competent counsel would have taken [the action in question]”
Broadwater v. U.S.
292 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 176 times
Holding that the district court's one-sentence denial of an individual's six ineffective assistance of counsel claims did not provide a sufficient basis for appellate review given the complexity of the claims, the voluminous record on appeal, and the fact that the movant's claims had arguable merit
Coulter v. Herring
60 F.3d 1499 (11th Cir. 1995) Cited 173 times
Holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a foregone guilty plea, a petitioner must show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would have pleaded guilty and not insisted on going to trial
Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Cited 129,058 times 129 Legal Analyses
Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions

Johnston v. United States of America

14 Cited authorities

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 a "colorable showing of factual innocence" satisfies the "ends of justice" requirement

Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

Holding that even a possible misjudgment about admissibility of evidence is not ineffective assistance.

Holding that limited mitigation investigation was reasonable when counsel interviewed all witnesses brought to his attention, and reasonably determined that focusing on his client's personal history would be detrimental

Holding that the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing where " there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence"

Holding that the ineffectiveness prong of Strickland is a high bar, requiring a showing that “no competent counsel would have taken [the action in question]”

Holding that the district court's one-sentence denial of an individual's six ineffective assistance of counsel claims did not provide a sufficient basis for appellate review given the complexity of the claims, the voluminous record on appeal, and the fact that the movant's claims had arguable merit

Holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a foregone guilty plea, a petitioner must show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would have pleaded guilty and not insisted on going to trial

Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions