Janosky v. St. Amand

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that MAC's conclusion that habeas petitioner's counsel did not act deficiently by introducing \potentially damaging [hearsay] testimony\ in attempt to discredit police investigation was not unreasonable
• suggesting that failure to instruct jury on their right to fail to agree coerced them to reach a verdict
• holding “[a] court must weigh the strength of the evidence in determining whether a sufficient showing of prejudice has been made under Strickland”
• explaining that the “discretionary miscarriage-of-justice review does not amount to a waiver of the state’s contemporaneous objection rule”
• stating that “[w]e have held, with a regularity bordering on the monotonous, that the Massachusetts requirement for contemporaneous objections is . . . firmly established in the state’s jurisprudence and regularly followed in its courts”
• stating that “[w]e have held, with a regularity bordering on the monotonous, that the Massachusetts requirement for contemporaneous objections is an independent and adequate state procedural ground, firmly established in the state’s jurisprudence and regularly followed in its courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).