Lutz v. Forbes

How courts have described this case

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

• “Hence, a defense counsel should neither submit matters over his client’s objection, nor fail to present matters that the client desires the convening authority to consider”
• ―Hence, a defense counsel should neither submit matters over his client‘s objection, nor fail to present matters that the client desires the convening authority to consider‖
• ―[T]rial defense counsel must con sult with the client regarding clemency and other matters, and must comply with the client‘s desires regarding submissions to the convening authority‖
• an appellant has the responsibility to bring to an appellate court's attention facts rather than mere speculation as relief cannot be granted, under Strickland, based on mere speculation
• appellant failed in his burden to affirmatively prove deficient performance where he failed to advise the court of “what favorable evidence he was deprived” of giving to the convening authority
• “To establish that his counsel’s performance . . . fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, the appellant must demonstrate that the witnesses were available to testify and that their testimony would have assisted the defense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).