Lynch v. Ficco

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that failure to object to inverting jury instruction was ineffective assistance of counsel
• explaining that any ineffective assistance claim must be itself exhausted before it may be used to excuse a procedural default of another federal claim
• noting that a court may consider a claim subject to the Massachusetts contemporaneous-objection rule only if petitioner showed cause and prejudice or a substantial likelihood of a fundamental miscarriage of justice
• noting the petitioner had to prove that “no competent lawyer would have reasonably permitted [the testimony] to be given without objection”
• noting Saferian is at least as protective as the federal standard outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
• petitioner who cannot show prejudice to establish claim under Strickland also cannot meet the “cause and prejudice” standard to excuse procedural default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).