Joshua Penner V. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the crucial role of the arson evidence to the state’s case” meant counsel’s failure to effectively challenge that evidence was prejudicial
• stating that challenging the State's arson case was crucial where defense counsel was aware of problems with the arson evidence
• stating that challenging the State’s arson case was crucial where defense counsel was aware of problems with the arson evidence
• holding that where defense counsel visually inspected the fire scene himself, talked with the state's experts, did some limited reading, and talked with other defense attorneys, he nonetheless failed to adequately investigate an available \no arson\ defense
• holding that where defense counsel visually inspected the fire scene himself, talked with the state’s experts, did some limited reading, and talked with other defense attorneys, he nonetheless failed to adequately investigate an available “no arson” defense
• noting that the “someone else did it” defense is both weak and difficult to establish

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).