Supreme Court hears case of death row
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1401810300.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that a US district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow an Arizona death row inmate to pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim after the inmate refused to allow his lawyer to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. In Schriro v. Landrigan, the defendant told the trial judge that he did not wish his lawyer to present mitigating evidence during sentencing, but then later attempted to obtain post-conviction relief because his lawyer failed to conduct further investigation into mitigating circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case. The majority wrote:
In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U. S. C. §2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of the district court. Here, the District Court determined that respondent could not make out a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It did so after reviewing the state-court record and expanding the record to include additional evidence offered by the respondent. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the hearing. We hold that it did not.
Read the Court's opinion per Justice Thomas, along with a dissent from Justice Stevens.
Related listings
-
Laporte Teen Accused of Shooting In Court
Lawyer Blogs 05/12/2007The Laporte teen accused of shooting his ex-girlfriend and himself last month was at the center of an emotionally charged court appearance this morning.Nineteen year-old Timothy Schaub was crying as he entered the courtroom, wearing a helmet because ...
-
Monica Goodling granted immunity in DOJ probe
Lawyer Blogs 05/11/2007[##_1L|1144467512.jpg|width="120" height="101" alt=""|_##]US District Judge Thomas Hogan approved an offer of immunity Friday for former Department of Justice aide Monica Goodling, clearing the way for Goodling's testimony before Congress on the firi...
-
Alleged flasher eyed in sex assaults
Lawyer Blogs 05/10/2007[##_1L|1300379934.bmp|width="250" height="138" alt=""|_##]A Santa Fe man suspected of stripping to his underwear in a local business was arrested today and quickly became a ‘person of interest’ in a series of sexual assaults. For now David Giba is be...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.