John Chang v. United States

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 district court was not required to hold a full testimonial hearing before deciding a section 2255 motion
• holding that even if the affidavits of petitioner and defense counsel are contradictory, a district court need not conduct a hearing where live testimony would not alter its view of the facts
• holding that even if the affidavits of petitioner and defense counsel are contradictory, the district court need not conduct a hearing where live testimony would not alter its view of the facts
• finding that it was within the district court’s discretion to rely on “a detailed affidavit from trial counsel” instead of conducting a full hearing
• finding that it was within the district court’s discretion to rely on “a detailed affidavit from trial counsel” instead of conducting a full hearing
• finding that it was within the district court’s discretion to rely on “a detailed affidavit from trial counsel” instead of conducting a full hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).