Citation network
Harrington Vs. Richter
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 19, 2011
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Harrington V. RichterSearch
-
Supreme Court, asserting, inter alia, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, see Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
on the correctness of that decision. Yarborough v. AlvaradoSearch
-
on a trial that took place over 15 years ago is precisely what Strickland and AEDPA seek to prevent. See Bell v. ConeSearch
-
concurring in the judgment. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Harrington v. RichterSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Harrington V. RichterSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-587 Kelly Harrington, Warden, Petitioner V. JoshuaSearch
-
s terms, in this case as it relates to ineffective-assistance claims judged by the standard set forth in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 668 (1984). A second case decided today, Premo v. MooreSearch
-
of guilty on all charges. Richter was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, his conviction was affirmed. People v. BranscombeSearch
-
Cal. App. 1998) (officially depublished). The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review, People v. BranscombeSearch
-
Court denied his petition, and a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See Richter v. HickmanSearch
-
s decision. See Richter v. HickmanSearch
-
s reasoning. See Chadwick v. JaneckaSearch
-
Wright v. SecretarySearch
-
Sellan v. KuhlmanSearch
-
Bell v. JarvisSearch
-
Harris v. StovallSearch
-
Aycox v. LytleSearch
-
James v. BowersoxSearch
-
d). Early v. PackerSearch
-
claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary. Cf. Harris v. ReedSearch
-
s decision is more likely. See, e.g. , Ylst v. NunnemakerSearch
-
s practices or elaborate more fully on their import. See Evans v. ChavisSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
s decision. Yarborough v. AlvaradoSearch
-
s decision be evaluated according to the precedents of this Court. See Renico v. LettSearch
-
of imposing a complete bar on federal court relitigation of claims already rejected in state proceedings. Cf. Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal. Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
on procedural grounds, the claim is barred in federal court unless one of the exceptions to the doctrine of Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
see also Bell v. ConeSearch
-
Bobby v. VanSearch
-
the jury from whether Johnson was telling the truth, or transform the case into a battle of the experts. Accord, Bonin v. CalderonSearch
-
U. S., at 687 (quoting McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
or whether it is possible a reasonable doubt might have been established if counsel acted differently. See Wong v. BelmontesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial