Holland v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant has the burden of proving whether counsel’s performance was deficient by a preponderance of the evidence
• concluding that the Sixth Circuit erred because the state court’s application of Strickland was not unreasonable under AEDPA
• holding that attorney error in state habeas proceedings is “chargeable to the client”
• finding that the restrictions of § 2254(e)(2) “apply a fortio-ri when a prisoner seeks relief based on new evidence without an evidentiary hearing”
• stating that a petitioner “must comply with § 2254(e)(2) in order to expand the record under Rule 7”
• finding that the state forfeited the issue of diligence under § 2254(e)(2) by failing to preserve it for appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).