Citation network
Schriro Vs. Landrigan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 2007
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2006 Schriro V. LandriganSearch
-
s performance fell below the standard required by Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
s precedent, based on the belief, derived from Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Schriro v. LandriganSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Schriro V. LandriganSearch
-
Of the United States No. 05-1575 Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Depart- Ment of Corrections, Petitioner V. JeffreySearch
-
State v. LandriganSearch
-
panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the full court granted rehearing en banc, Landrigan v. StewartSearch
-
the decision to grant an evidentiary hearing was generally left to the sound discretion of district courts. Brown v. AllenSearch
-
see also Townsend v. SainSearch
-
a substantially higher threshold. See Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
s factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief. See, e.g. , Mayes v. GibsonSearch
-
Totten v. MerkleSearch
-
This approach is not unique to the Ninth Circuit. See Anderson v. AttorneySearch
-
cf. Clark v. JohnsonSearch
-
Campbell v. VaughnSearch
-
U. S. 202 , 206 (2003) (citing Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Landrigan v. StewartSearch
-
d)(1)). This holding was founded on the belief, derived from Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
emphasis added and deleted)). Indeed, we have never addressed a situation like this. In Rompilla v. BeardSearch
-
s decision not to introduce evidence. Cf., e.g. , Iowa v. TovarSearch
-
F. 3d, at 1229 (citations and footnote omitted). v. TheSearch
-
his postconviction petition. Under Arizona law, a defendant cannot raise new claims in a motion for rehearing. State v. ByersSearch
-
Ariz. 139, 142, 613 P. 2d 299, 302 (App. 1980), overruled on other grounds, State v. PopeSearch
-
Ariz. 253, 635 P. 2d 846 (1981) (en banc). Schriro v. LandriganSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Schriro V. LandriganSearch
-
s counsel failed to conduct a constitutionally adequate investigation. See Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
decision reflect meaningful consideration of all relevant mitigating evidence, see, e.g. , Abdul-Kabir v. QuartermanSearch
-
Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
need for a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutionally protected trial rights, see, e.g. , Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
the District Court abused its discretion in denying respondent an evidentiary hearing should be affirmed. See Townsend v. SainSearch
-
s waiver of a constitutional right must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. As far back as Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Zerbst , 304 U. S. 458 ). Twenty-five years after Zerbst , our decision in Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
from Zerbst to Schneckloth to the only waiver case that the majority cites, Iowa v. TovarSearch
-
claim that he failed to knowingly or intelligently waive his right to present mitigating evidence. See Keeney v. Tamayo-ReyesSearch
-
is fundamentally different from a claim . Cf. Yee v. EscondidoSearch
-
s Strickland error. See Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
to him, he could not have made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. See Battenfield v. GibsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial