Armstrong v. Kemna

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting Strickland requires attorneys to be “reasonably competent” using an objective standard
• “[S]trategic choices resulting from lack of diligence in preparation and investigation [are] not protected by the presumption in favor of counsel.”
• “On the other hand, strategic choices ‘resulting from lack of diligence in preparation and investigation [are] not protected by the presumption in favor of counsel.’ ”
• while “strategic choices” generally are entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, “strategic choices ‘resulting from lack of diligence in preparation and investigation [are] not protected by the presumption in favor of counsel.’ ”
• without a specific, affirmative showing as to what the missing evidence or testimony would have been, court cannot determine whether the petitioner was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance
• “Ordinarily, a defendant’s 10 failure to present some evidence from the uncalled witness regarding that witness’s potential testimony would be fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” (cleaned up and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).