Isaiah Brady v. Randy Pfister

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003), in which the Court applied AEDPA deference to performance element of petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim but reviewed prejudice element de novo
• “Williams therefore confirms the fact that the state court’s reasoning continues to be relevant wherever it has given an explanation, notwithstanding the holding in Richter.”
• ‘‘the law does not demand, or even permit, the disregarding of [witnesses’] testimony just because they are close to the accused’’
• “A state court could write that it rejected a defendant’s claim because Tarot cards dictated that result, but its decision might nonetheless be a sound one.”
• “[T]he trier of fact would have been entitled to take the [family] relationships . . . into account in assessing the witnesses’ credibility . . . .”
• “If a state court's rationale does not pass muster under the Williams v. Taylor standard for Section 2254(d)(1) cases, the only consequence is that further inquiry is necessary.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).