48 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 136,002 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 21,995 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 8,057 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "counsel chose to abandon their investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to sentencing strategy impossible" in light of what the records that they reviewed "actually revealed"
  4. Tennard v. Dretke

    542 U.S. 274 (2004)   Cited 4,673 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 4,795 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 2,632 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to investigate and discover mitigating evidence at the sentencing stage was ineffective assistance of counsel because "mitigating evidence, taken as a whole, might well have influenced the jury’s appraisal" of the defendant’s culpability and therefore "the likelihood of a different result if the evidence had gone in is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome actually reached at sentencing"
  7. McMann v. Richardson

    397 U.S. 759 (1970)   Cited 6,585 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 2,797 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 3,605 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 903 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