§Why CasetextPricing

Saddler v. Conant

MOTION re Supplement

78 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,859 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"

  2. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 37,789 times   66 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

  3. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 26,253 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"

  4. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,483 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

  5. Renico v. Lett

    559 U.S. 766 (2010)   Cited 5,225 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state court was not obligated to employ a three-part test enunciated by the circuit court, because those factors were not clearly established by Supreme Court precedent

  6. Hill v. Lockhart

    474 U.S. 52 (1985)   Cited 20,016 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Strickland claim can be brought to challenge a guilty plea, but rejecting the claim at issue

  7. Roe v. Flores-Ortega

    528 U.S. 470 (2000)   Cited 5,728 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"

  8. Ylst v. Nunnemaker

    501 U.S. 797 (1991)   Cited 7,245 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if "the last reasoned opinion on [a habeas] claim explicitly imposes a procedural default," federal courts "will presume that a later decision rejecting the claim did not silently disregard that bar"

  9. Jones v. Barnes

    463 U.S. 745 (1983)   Cited 11,154 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

  10. Carey v. Saffold

    536 U.S. 214 (2002)   Cited 3,469 times
    Holding that a petitioner's claim is "pending" for the entire term of state court review, including those intervals between one state court's judgment and the filing of an appeal with a higher state court

  11. Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts

    28 U.S.C. § 2254   Cited 204,480 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"

  12. Section 2241 - Power to grant writ

    28 U.S.C. § 2241   Cited 80,418 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"

  13. Section 2244 - Finality of determination

    28 U.S.C. § 2244   Cited 65,296 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

  14. Rule 404 - Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct-Exceptions-Other Crimes

    Alaska R. Evid. 404   Cited 326 times

    (a)Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1)Character of Accused. Evidence of a relevant trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same; (2)Character of Victim. Evidence of a relevant trait of character of a victim of crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence

  15. Rule 401 - Definition of Relevant Evidence

    Alaska R. Evid. 401   Cited 60 times

    Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Alaska R. Evid. 401 Added by SCO 364 effective 8/1/1979

  16. Rule 210 - Record on Appeal

    Alaska R. App. P. 210   Cited 31 times

    (a) Composition of Record. The record on appeal consists of the entire trial court file, including the original papers and exhibits filed in the trial court, the electronic record of proceedings before the trial court, and transcripts, if any, of the trial court proceedings. Except as otherwise ordered by the appellate court, the record does not include documents or exhibits filed after, or electronic records or transcripts of proceedings occurring after, the filing date of the notice of appeal,

  17. Rule 27 - Proceedings Upon Trial- Management of Juries

    Alaska R. Crim. P. 27   Cited 3 times

    (a)Order of Proceedings. After a jury is impanelled and sworn, the trial shall proceed in the following order: (1) The prosecuting attorney shall state the case of the prosecution, and may briefly state the evidence by which the prosecuting attorney expects to sustain it. (2) (i) The defendant, or the defendant's counsel, may then state the defense, and may briefly state the evidence the defendant expects to offer in support of it. (ii) If no statement of the defendant's case is made after the statement