Lorenzen v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where none of the errors alleged are meritorious, the PCR court erred in finding the cumulative effect of the alleged errors established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
• holding that the PCR applicant failed to show he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call an eyewitness identification expert because “it is merely speculative that these allegedly favorable expert witnesses would have aided in his defense.”
• holding that the PCR applicant failed to show he was prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to call an eyewitness identification expert because \it is merely speculative that these allegedly favorable expert witnesses would have aided in his defense.\
• stating that the South Carolina Supreme Court “ ‘has consistently held the results of polygraph examinations are generally not admissible because the reliability of the tests is questionable.’ ” (quoting State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 23, 515 S.E.2d 508, 519 (1999)
• stating that the South Carolina Supreme Court “ ‘has consistently held the results of polygraph examinations are generally not admissible because the reliability of the tests is questionable.’ ” (quoting State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 23, 515 S.E.2d 508, 519 (1999))
• “Although this Court in [State v.] Council [335 S.C. I, 24, 515 S.E.2d 508, 520 (1999

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).