In the Interest of M.M., J.M., and P.F., Minor Children

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defense counsel’s alleged deficiency during closing argument did not raise a reasonable probability that the result would have been different given the graphic evidence of the crime presented by the prosecution and the “boastful” confessions by the defendant
• noting that the “instructions in this case are the same Ohio instructions that were given in” Spisak
• assuming counsel’s performance was deficient, but holding that it did not result in cognizable prejudice because there was no reasonable probability that the sentencing outcome would have been different but for counsel’s error
• finding similar instructions sufficiently \explained the concept of a `mitigating factor'\
• assuming counsel's performance was deficient, but holding that it did not result in cognizable prejudice because there was no reasonable probability that the sentencing outcome would have been different but for counsel's error
• “Our concern in Beck was that presenting the jury with only two options—death or no punishment—introduced a risk of arbitrariness and error into the deliberative process that the Constitution could not abide in the capital context.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).