48 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 146,580 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prejudice for IAC claims requires showing "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"
  2. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 23,789 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a petitioner "had no right to counsel to pursue his appeal in state habeas" and "attorney error ... led to the default of [the petitioner's] claims in state court," error could not constitute cause to excuse procedural default
  3. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 8,723 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
  4. Tennard v. Dretke

    542 U.S. 274 (2004)   Cited 5,005 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"
  5. Roe v. Flores-Ortega

    528 U.S. 470 (2000)   Cited 5,201 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"
  6. Rompilla v. Beard

    545 U.S. 374 (2005)   Cited 2,788 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's minimal investigation was deficient even though the defendant was "actively obstructive by sending counsel off on false leads"
  7. McMann v. Richardson

    397 U.S. 759 (1970)   Cited 6,921 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even a possible misjudgment about admissibility of evidence is not ineffective assistance.
  8. Ake v. Oklahoma

    470 U.S. 68 (1985)   Cited 2,912 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the State presents aggravating psychiatric evidence during a capital sentencing proceeding, the defendant has a due process right to the assistance of a psychiatrist
  9. Lockett v. Ohio

    438 U.S. 586 (1978)   Cited 3,673 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Ohio death penalty statute, which required imposition of the death penalty once a defendant was found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating factors, unless one of three specified mitigating factors was established by a preponderance of the evidence, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the statute limited the range of mitigating factors that the sentencer could consider
  10. Porter v. McCollum

    558 U.S. 30 (2009)   Cited 1,003 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it "is unreasonable to discount to irrelevance the evidence of [a petitioner's] abusive childhood, especially when that kind of history may have particular salience for a jury" evaluating the petitioner's interpersonal relationships