Franza v. Stinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that procedural defects in CPL § 440.10 proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas review and collecting cases
• Petitioner's “vague assertion that the trial court’s denial of his CPL § 440.10 motion violated due process and equal protection is not cognizable on federal habeas review.”
• “Even a Clarence Darrow or Arthur Liman lost cases. In every case, no matter how good the lawyers, one side prevails and one side loses, but that is no evidence that the losing lawyer was ineffective.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).