Danny Harold Rolling v. James v. Crosby

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the attorneys reasonably believed at the time that a jury from the “medical community” where the case was set to be tried was more likely to consider favorably mitigating circumstance evidence of mental health problems
• stating that “[t]he factual findings of the state court, including the credibility findings, are presumed to be correct”
• stating that “[t]he factual findings of the state court, including the credibility findings, are presumed to be correct”
• stating that “[t]he factual findings of the state court, including the credibility findings, are presumed to be correct”
• stating that a state court’s credibility finding is a finding of fact
• stating that a state court’s credibility finding is a factual finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).